Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL. (By ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Wednesday 2 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Playgroups (South Swindon)

Ms Julia Drown: What Government financial support was given to playgroups in South Swindon in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 2001–02. [157907]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): This year, generous financial support is being given to playgroups in Swindon, including £770,000 for direct grant for three-year-olds, funding for four-year-olds through the standard spending assessment, £415,000 in child care grant, £1.5 million over three years for the neighbourhood nursery initiatives and moneys from the new opportunities fund. Swindon playgroups can also access specific national funds for capital investment and sustainability to expand services to provide full day care and to support pre-schools in difficulties.
In 1996–97, Swindon pre-schools got nothing for free nursery places and a minute share of the miserable £9.6 million available nationally for out-of-school clubs. Unlike the Tories, we are putting our money where our mouth is, investing in the early years and supporting pre-schools.

Ms Drown: There is no doubt that under this Government there has been tremendous extra support for nursery education and child care, including playgroups, which is in stark contrast to the virtual abandonment of the sector by the Conservative Government. Will my hon. Friend assure us of her support for playgroups? What are the Government doing to improve the status of playgroup workers, who provide valuable support to our communities but are often poorly paid and lack recognition for their worthwhile work in playgroup sessions, in preparing for those sessions and in evaluating the work that is done?

Ms Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her long-standing commitment to the work that she has

carried out to ensure that there is a choice of high-quality child care and education places for people in South Swindon. Of course we value playgroups and we wish to raise the status of those who work in them. It is an interesting fact that child care and early years education is now the second fastest growing sector in the labour market. With our investment in that sector, the establishment of a qualifications framework and the introduction of the child care tax credit and the working families tax credit, we are enabling playgroup workers to be properly rewarded for their work.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: When the Education and Employment Committee looked at early years provision in towns such as Swindon, we heard that a problem for playgroups is the pressure placed by schools on parents to bring their children into school well before they are ready. What are the Government going to do about that?

Ms Hodge: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the pressure on playgroups came from the previous Government's ill-advised and ill-conceived nursery voucher scheme, which led in one year to the closure of 1,100 playgroups. This Government have invested to ensure that playgroups have access to the nursery education grant for three and four-year-olds. That means that we have turned a corner, and last year there were 6,000 new places in playgroups in England.

Oral Answers to Questions — Truancy

Mr. David Taylor: What plans he has to support schools in using information technology to tackle truancy. [157908]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): Last month, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), announced that £11 million will be available to introduce electronic registration systems into more than 500 secondary schools.

Mr. Taylor: Information technology may well cut 10 per cent, of truancy over the next two years, but our pledge at the 1997 general election was to cut it by a third by 2002. Are we on track for that? Is not parentally condoned truancy the real problem? Should we not invest in more low-tech attendance officers to try to combat that problem? Is there not potential in this place to combat Tory truancy from Question Time? The presence of only seven Tory Back Benchers at education and employment questions is dreadful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the way to proceed with questions on education and employment. I certainly hope that the Minister will not respond in kind.

Mr. Wills: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend is right that parentally condoned truancy is a major problem. I have some figures that we have just received from 112 local education authorities that responded with information on the effectiveness of truancy sweeps. Half said that most children stopped during sweeps were accompanied by parents or carers. In some areas, that was the case with up


to 97 per cent. of truants, so it is obviously a big problem and we must address it. That is why we introduced truancy sweeps, which we announced last year.
We are making considerable progress on our manifesto pledge to cut exclusions and are well on track. We have cut 20 per cent, from the highest figure, and we are now introducing measures that will make a significant impact on truancy. The best way to reduce the rate of truancy is to prevent it from happening in the first place, and that is why many of the local projects that we support through our social inclusion pupil support grant target measures to do that. We also know that the use of electronic registration can cut truancy by up to 10 per cent. [Interruption.] Hon. Members might be more interested in this if they took more interest in education policy. We know that electronic registration must be an important part of our strategy to reduce truancy.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Every week I see groups of young people of secondary school age in my constituency and I try to discover whether they are at school or not. Every week, I find that many of them are not, and sometimes they have not been there for the whole period during which they should have been attending school.
Will Ministers consider seriously not just the option of daytime school-hours truancy sweeps, but of ensuring that we have enough people, such as detached youth workers, to engage with young people out of school hours at weekends and evenings? They could discover what motivates the kids and get them into some structure, whether through sport, an apprenticeship or work-related project, so that they can get back into the system. Could we not concentrate on such personal mentoring rather than trying to bribe young people into activity with CDs and other things?

Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of having a rounded strategy with a number of different instruments to tackle the problem of truancy. His constituency, I believe, is benefiting from the excellence in cities initiative and he will know, precisely for the reasons that he outlined, that personal mentors are an important part of that initiative, performing the kind of function that he described. The Connexions service will also provide personal mentors for older pupils to make sure that they get the kind of support that they need to overcome the barriers that divide them from school and education and that cause many of them to truant in the first place.

Mr. Andrew Reed: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a wide range of difficulties and reasons why an individual may truant? Does he agree that the role of local education authorities is crucial for children with emotional and psychological problems, who are not truanting through choice, but have problems that need to be addressed? Will he ensure that local education authorities have sufficient resources to give back-up to schools, rather than taking cash away from local education authorities and putting pressure on schools, as large secondary schools with those problems cannot cope with the vast amount of work?

Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of investment in those resources. It is all

very well having the ideas, but unless there is money to back them up, they are meaningless, which is why we are now investing £174 million in measures to tackle exclusion and truancy. By way of contrast, that is 10 times the amount spent in the Opposition's last year in government.

Oral Answers to Questions — Schools Expenditure (Worcestershire)

Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on expenditure on schools in Worcestershire. [157909]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): In 2001–02, Worcestershire's education standard spending assessment increased by almost £9 million. In addition, its share of the £52 million education budget support grant will be £1.35 million. Following the recent Budget announcement, Worcestershire schools will receive almost £7.8 million as their share of the school standards grant, more than double their allocation in the previous year.

Mr. Luff: I think that the Minister, who is an honest woman, would admit that, under this Government, Worcestershire's share of national education expenditure has fallen very sharply indeed. Is she aware that the pressures that that is creating in Worcestershire schools like Droitwich Spa high school is leading to a crisis in retention and recruitment? I therefore ask her a simple question: will she commit her party to a clear and unambiguous timetable to end that unfairness?

Ms Morris: Where the hon. Gentleman is right is in saying that the formula that we use to distribute money from central to local government needs to be reformed. We are doing that; his Government did not. Quite honestly, had the formula been in a better state when we came to office, we would not be in difficulty now. It is interesting that the debate is now about what share of an increased budget Worcestershire schools get. Under the previous Government, the debate was about how those schools coped with their share of budget cuts.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a school which, presumably, is in his constituency. I should like to quote the head of an infants school in Worcester, who recently wrote to her MP and said:
I cannot believe how much money we have! Speaking to other Primary Headteachers, I know they feel the same … We all know it will not happen overnight, however, I feel that at least we are on the road to recovery.
That recovery is taking place after 18 years of underfunding. I am happy that the debate is now about how we split up the extra money going into Worcestershire schools. Our record is one of £1 million extra for his local authority to cut class sizes and a real-terms increase of 16 per cent. for every child in Worcestershire's schools. The position is not yet perfect but, as that infant school head said, schools are well on the way to recovery.

Mrs. Theresa May: What Worcestershire schools need is not yet more ministerial delay and dither, but a Conservative Government committed to a national funding formula. However, I expect that Worcestershire schools were pleased to hear the Prime Minister's pledge that he would raise the level of spending in state schools to


that in independent schools. Was that spending level the same as in the public schools that the Prime Minister attended, or as in the so-called pretty standard grammar school attended by the Leader of the House of Lords?

Ms Morris: It is excellent news that now, for the very first time, we have a Prime Minister with such aspirations for standards for our children. The hon. Lady, and schools in Worcestershire and elsewhere, should look at what the Prime Minister has delivered in the past four years: three times as much capital spending, an increase in revenue spending of £540 per pupil, and a commitment to make sure that the share of the national wealth spent on education continues to grow in the next Parliament as it has in the present Parliament. We have a record of which we can be proud. Now people know that we have kept our word—education is the Government's top priority. As schools in Worcestershire know, we will continue to deliver, as we have delivered for the past four years.

Mrs. May: Parents and teachers in Worcestershire will be disappointed by the Minister's replies, which show how little she and the Government understand what is happening in schools in Worcestershire. On Sunday, when she was asked what the timetable was for the Prime Minister's pledge, her response was, "Well, you have to ask the Prime Minister." Is it possible that education Ministers were not aware of the pledge that he intended to give, or was it yet more prime ministerial hot air?
The right hon. Lady spoke of the Government keeping their word. Far from it; the Prime Minister committed the Government to spending a higher proportion of national income on education than the previous Conservative Government, but they are spending less. He gave a commitment that class sizes would be smaller—tell that to the parents of the class of 94 in Norfolk. He committed himself to the most fundamental reform of the teaching profession since state education began, which has led to teachers leaving the profession in droves. Is not the reality, as schools in Worcestershire know, that on funding, secondary class sizes and teacher numbers, the Labour Government are all spin and no delivery?

Ms Morris: That shows just how out of touch the Conservatives are with what is going on in the real world. Anyone who went round infant classes four years ago would have seen that three in 10 of those children were in classes not of 31 or 35, but often of 45. This September, whichever school one visits, whether in town or country, one will not find one five, six or seven-year-old child who is in a class of more than 30. We have delivered on class sizes. If one goes round schools, one will find 17,000 that have been invested in and improved. Schools that have needed to be rebuilt for generations have been rebuilt under this Government. On teacher numbers, there are 12,000 more teachers in post than in 1997.
I do not believe what the hon. Lady says about the views of Worcestershire teachers when I read the comments of the infant school teacher whom I quoted earlier. She continues:
After years of trying to make savings each year and having to cut back on non-teaching staff, we can afford a full complement of classroom assistants at the start of the academic year.
Forget the figures—one does not have to believe them. After four years of Labour government, the result is that we have more 11-year-olds who can read and write than

ever before in the history of the nation, and we have fewer children leaving school with no qualifications. We have made a difference. That is what parents wanted, and that is what we have delivered.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, I should point out that the Minister's reply was far too long. I say to the Opposition Front Bench that the question was also too long.

Oral Answers to Questions — School Achievement Awards

Mr. Nick Hawkins: What advice he is taking following his Department's errors over this year's school achievement awards and the Minister of State's letter to schools of 29 March. [157911]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): We have fully investigated the reasons for the error, which should not have happened. As soon as I was aware that there was a problem, I acted quickly to put things right. That included informing schools, individual hon. Members and the House.

Mr. Hawkins: This appalling error was set out in a written answer delivered this week to my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). Page after page of schools throughout the country were misinformed that they had won school achievement awards or told that they should have received them when they had not done so, as a result of the complete incompetence of the Minister's Department. After her recent answers to my hon. Friend, in which she preened herself about her Government's supposed triumphs, will she now accept that she should be taking advice from the chairman of governors and the head teacher of Blackdown school in my constituency? They say that their staff are demotivated and describe her letter about this appalling mistake as insulting and incompetent. Will she apologise to the 293 schools throughout the country that were misinformed, stop wasting taxpayers' money on advertising and start doing her job?

Ms Morris: Yes, I apologise to the 300 schools that received inaccurate information. I apologised to them in my letter and to hon. Members in a parliamentary answer. The hon. Gentleman could have spoken for longer, and turned over the pages listing the 7,000 schools that received awards that were a true recognition of their great achievements. It is a tragedy that he uses his time in the House to name publicly the school that was wrongly given the award—something that I have not done in the Chamber. It is a shame that he did not take the chance to list all the schools in his constituency and local education authority area that won awards and deserve to be recognised.
I apologise to the 300 schools, but for the very first time, this Government have spent £60 million on giving a cash bonus to teams of teachers and classroom assistants, and to all those who work in schools, to celebrate their success. I have received a great number of letters from special, nursery, infant and secondary schools, which tell me that this is the first time that they have ever been recognised and rewarded in such a


manner. I share in their celebration; it is a shame that the hon. Gentleman did not gracefully choose to do so for a little bit of his time today.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know that this was not a major tragedy, but an unfortunate glitch. I hope that she will continue with the school achievement awards and all the other innovative programmes and policies that are, within the comprehensive ideal, bringing together the ambition to achieve diversity and choice. Will she remember that such diversity and choice need not only a lot of good ideas, but the continuing resources that the Government have pledged to provide? As we approach a general election, will she pledge to the House that we will continue with that commitment of resources?

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right: those ideas need to be well resourced, and they will continue to be so. The school achievement award scheme was part of our strategy for reforming teachers' pay. I assure him that, just as we are the first Government to put in place a system that rewards good teachers for teaching well, we will continue to reward teams of teachers, as we have done through the school achievement award.

Oral Answers to Questions — New Deal for Schools

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: How much has been allocated to schools in the Chatham and Aylesford constituency from the new deal for schools programme. [157912]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): The funding allocated between 1997–98 and 2000–01 to schools in the Chatham and Aylesford constituency from the new deal for schools programme was £10.6 million. That included allocations made to Kent and Medway local education authorities for total packages that include schools in the constituency. For the next three years, Kent has so far been allocated £56.6 million and Medway £10.6 million under the new deal for schools programme.

Mr. Shaw: If my hon. Friend believes that that reply warrants gratitude and thanks from me, she is right. However, that is not the complete picture. The capital grant to which she referred is £1.5 million for St. Mark's school in Eccles, which has waited years for a new school. The money came from the new deal; the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party voted against it. On Monday, I attended a ground-breaking ceremony for Chatham South school, which has waited 20 years for a new school hall. However, it will get not only a new school hall, but six classrooms, a studio and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should try for an Adjournment debate on the subject.

Jacqui Smith: I do not ask for gratitude, but for the money to continue to contribute to raising school standards. Departmental research clearly shows that the money that we are putting in to schools has an impact not only through repairing roofs, building new schools and

replacing temporary classrooms but through giving teachers and children the environment that they need in which to learn and to continue to raise standards.

Oral Answers to Questions — Performance-related Pay

Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on performance-related pay for teachers. [157913]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The new arrangements for performance-related pay for teachers are now in place. More than 80 per cent. of the assessments have been undertaken and we envisage that more than 70 per cent. of those eligible for the award will receive it. Those who receive it, together with the pay increase from 1 April, will gain an increase of £3,000 and access to a new pay scale of £4,000, which will take teachers in London who do not accept management and administrative responsibility to a salary of £31,000 or £34,000 a year.

Mr. Cunningham: I am grateful for that reply. How many teachers in Coventry have qualified for performance-related pay? What is my right hon. Friend doing to lift morale and to reduce the amount of paperwork that teachers have to endure?

Mr. Blunkett: I have always accepted that pay on its own is insufficient. Working conditions and investment in the staff room as well as the classroom are crucial. Just under 1,600 teachers have currently applied for performance-related pay in Coventry. I do not have the final figure for the number who have qualified, but I hope that it is equivalent to the national figure that I gave.
In the past two terms, we have halved the amount of paperwork and Government missives. We are putting in place a £35 million electronic data collection and collation scheme, which will avoid the duplication of data and the necessity for a variety of agencies to request the same information. With the massive investment in each pupil and in buildings and technology, we are not only raising morale but, by doing so, ensuring that we raise standards for every child in every school in the country.

Mr. Phil Willis: Liberal Democrats welcome any extra money that goes into teachers' pay packets, but how does the Secretary of State explain the £35 million that was spent on consultancy to introduce the scheme? How can he excuse the days of wasted time spent by teachers and head teachers in filling in a bureaucratic nightmare? Is not it high time to abandon performance-related pay, and look to Scotland, where the Liberal Democrats have brokered a deal for teachers that values them through the hours that they work and their conditions of service? That is what matters to teachers, not the bureaucracy that the Government have heaped upon them day after day.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How can you fill in a bureaucratic nightmare? That's bad grammar.

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) points out the impossibility of filling in a nightmare. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) had a similar nightmare


to me and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) when he attended the National Union of Teachers conference. I presume that he lost his voice there.
The hon. Gentleman delivered an interesting tirade. Starters in England receive higher pay than in Scotland. That position will continue in August when the increase in Scotland takes effect. Teachers in Scotland may or may not have a 35-hour week by 2006. Any party that advocates a 35-hour week in a 39-week year needs to be able to tell the electorate what resources are being diverted to pay for that policy.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards said a few moments ago that the school achievement award scheme was part of performance-related pay for teachers. Will the Secretary of State consider revising the school achievement award scheme, basing it perhaps on Ofsted reports, to create a less crude measure than using only test results? Will he consider at least taking Ofsted reports into account? Now that our friend Mr. Woodhead has gone, schools might be able to take a more positive approach to Ofsted. I can say, as someone who has experienced an Ofsted report, that when one has got through it, one certainly feels in need of a reward.

Mr. Blunkett: That is precisely why performance-related pay is rewarding good teachers well for doing precisely that in the classroom, rather than having to rely on management or administrative promotion. Yes, the achievement awards are about progress, in terms of assessed improvement against benchmark three-year programmes, and about excellence. We are very open to refining and improving any reward system, so long as it is based on improved standards.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This is an important question; I say that to the Secretary of State sincerely. The future of the Ryles Park high school in my constituency is in some doubt, primarily because it is the only secondary school in Macclesfield that provides for those with learning difficulties, and that has an inevitable impact on the league tables. Does he accept that, while performance-related pay is important, responsibility is also important, and that the skills that teachers need to deal with those with learning difficulties are critical to the success of education? Will he recognise the role of those teachers, which could lead to improvements in the number of those attending that school and remove the doubt that hangs over its future?

Mr. Blunkett: I confirm that I agree that those working with, supporting and encouraging the progress of those with learning difficulties should be rewarded, which is why the performance-related promotion is about rewarding and recognising those who take children from whatever their starting point to a point of improvement. In other words, it is as applicable to teachers working with special needs children—not only in integrated special needs but in special needs schools—and receiving the performance-related uplift, as well as those who have received the achievement and performance bonus, as to teachers elsewhere, and I commend those special needs teachers.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Secretary of State recall that the criticism of the scheme from the Liberal Democrats and others when it was launched was that only a minority of teachers would benefit? Do not the figures that he outlined demonstrate that a clear majority of teachers can benefit, now and in future? Does not that fact show that the vast majority of teachers are good teachers, and that the Government value them?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I can confirm that. Although my hon. Friend was being heckled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman during that question, I must point out to the House that performance-related pay applies also at senior management team, deputy and head levels. More than 60 per cent. of head teachers and more than 50 per cent. of deputy heads have benefited from it. Putting in place the performance-related promotion for those not on administration and management grades is another leg in that process. So, yes, all teachers have the opportunity to benefit from this programme, which is why 200,000 of them applied.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Given that the performance-related pay scheme is divisive, how does it assist in recruitment or in increasing morale in the teaching profession? Is it not a gimmick, and a pointless one at that?

Mr. Blunkett: Of course, recruitment has gone up, as illustrated in the independent statistics, by more than 12,000 since January 1998, and there are 2,400 extra supply teachers, all of whom are available in the classroom. However, I cannot see for a moment how the scheme can any longer be described as divisive. People have their normal pay increase, and the entitlement to go up the normal incremental scale. They now also have the entitlement to seek promotion on to the new scales that I described earlier, and they get the £2,000 uplift to boot, simply for being a good teacher in the classroom.
The fact that 200,000 teachers have applied illustrates that, far from this being something for a minority, it is for the majority of teachers who, I repeat—despite the president of the National Union of Teachers telling me off for saying so—are good teachers. We value them for being good teachers and we thank them for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sure Start (Romsey)

Sandra Gidley: If he will make a statement on sure start provision in the Romsey constituency. [157914]

The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): Currently there are no sure start programmes in the Romsey constituency, but 260 have been announced. Districts are chosen on the basis of levels of deprivation. The district of Southampton has two sure start programmes, although the catchment areas for both programmes are outside the Romsey constituency.

Sandra Gidley: It is true that Southampton was encouraged to make an application for sure start. The city council wanted to include the Flower estate, which is part of Bassett ward in my constituency, but unfortunately the estate forms only a third of a very large ward which is otherwise regarded as affluent. Will the Minister


undertake to ensure that isolated pockets of deprivation, which all agencies agree need help, will be able to receive money in future, and that we do not rely solely on arbitrary ward boundaries?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady has raised an important issue about how best to target small areas of deprivation. So far 260 sure start programmes have been targeted in that way, but we are committed to introducing 500 by 2004. Many other areas will have programmes over the next few years.
We have made clear our intention to look at different models when we are developing the new programmes, and to focus on smaller pockets of deprivation that the current targeting method might not pick up. Every child living in poverty deserves the best possible start in life, wherever he or she lives.

Oral Answers to Questions — New Deal for Young People

Mr. Nigel Beard: What assessment he has made of the involvement of different sectors of the economy in the new deal for young people. [157915]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): The new deal has helped to cut long-term unemployment among young people by nearly 80 per cent. over the past four years. It is now the lowest for a generation, and a strong and stable economy has enabled businesses to create well over 1 million new jobs
The intensified training provided by the new deal is designed according to the demands of employers. New dealers will increasingly move into sectors where skill shortages have been a problem for businesses seeking to grow. For example, we are working with leading information technology companies through Ambition IT, which will enable 5,000 more unemployed people to train as computer technicians. Ambition Retail, a consortium of major high street shops, allows the possibility of 50,000 more jobs, and further jobs to come. Transco is recruiting at least 15,000 new dealers to train as gas fitters over the next few years.
The new deal is providing solutions for industry and jobs with prospects for unemployed people.

Mr. Beard: I have seen an excellent example of the way in which the new deal is working for both 16 to 25-year-olds and those over 25 in Bexleyheath and Crayford, and I know of the number and variety of doors that have been opened. Thameside, in the London borough of Bexley, has some of the greatest potential for business development in London, and the Thames gateway partnership is aimed at attracting new employers to the area. Will the new national network of training organisations be able to provide for the skills that employers may require, so that local people may retrain and benefit from the new opportunities that will arise?

Ms Jowell: That is precisely the intention of the combined efforts of national training organisations, learning and skills councils and the new deal. I hope very much that those opportunities will be extended to my hon.

Friend's constituents and to the employers whom he mentions, but they should be under no illusion: were the Tories to be elected, the new deal would be scrapped.

Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister could more accurately say that the new deal would be improved under the next Conservative Government. She knows that about a third of young people leaving the new deal go into jobs, and that half of them have lost those jobs within nine months. The record of the Wildcat Corporation in New York is 86 per cent. going into jobs, 94 per cent. of whom are still in them after 12 months. Now that the new deal taskforce has spent £175,000 taking advice from Wildcat, what has she learned about the reasons for the new deal failing to achieve the results that are achieved by Wildcat and that will be achieved by "Britain works" under the next Conservative Government?

Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We hear more invented figures with the purpose of discrediting the new deal, a programme that has halved long-term unemployment among young people and which the Conservatives are pledged to scrap. We are taking lessons from Wildcat because that is important in trying to develop more help for the most disadvantaged young people, especially the ambitious, sectorally focused, high skill programmes that I have already identified.

Oral Answers to Questions — School Language Colleges

Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on schools with attached specialist language colleges. [157916]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): In May 1997, there were 181 specialist schools and there are now 536, with an ambition to make that 650 by this September. Some 99 are language colleges.

Dr. Iddon: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Little Lever school in my constituency, which achieved language college status and is already teaching five languages? The Japanese Government have funded a full-time teacher of Japanese and 15 Japanese women visited the school recently, dressed in national costume, and talked about their culture to the whole school. The teaching of Russian in the school has also prompted the art department to exchange its art work with a school in Russia. An international dimension has been spread across the whole curriculum of the school and out into the wider community.

Mr. Blunkett: I very much wish to congratulate the school. I have a list of the languages taught—French, German, Spanish, Urdu, Japanese, Russian, Italian and Cantonese, as well as starter courses in other languages. I only wish that I had been at the school when the Japanese visitors came, so that I could have enjoyed their costume and dancing. I congratulate the Japanese Government on their excellent initiative in funding the first year of the post and I hope that we can develop that with other embassies and countries.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: What consideration has the Secretary of State given to making German rather than French the main foreign language taught in schools? One can spend four years at school learning French but find it very difficult to achieve an authentic accent, whereas after just 18 months of learning German even Germans can think one is a German, which is very satisfying. Teaching German also provides grammar, which has not been taught properly in schools since we stopped teaching Latin. Does he agree that die Zukunft ist Deutsch und nicht Französisch—the future is German, not French?

Mr. Blunkett: No, I do not.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I enjoyed that exchange and the Secretary of State will know that I, too, take an interest in specialist and language colleges. Given that the criteria for specialist schools are now so broad that it is in practice possible to be a selective school in virtually anything except one or two important academic subjects, and given that the Prime Minister was reported to have told the Association of Teachers and Lecturers recently that—in contrast to the Secretary of State's Green Paper—there seemed to be no remaining limits on the number of specialist schools, I invite him to give an indication of the longest timetable for implementation of the specialist schools programme. Can he tell the House whether any comprehensive schools will be left as what the Prime Minister's spokesperson so characteristically, inelegantly and grossly unfairly described as bog standard?

Mr. Blunkett: I have comprehensively dealt with the last point on more than one occasion. The hon. Gentleman made a Freudian slip—I think that the record will show that he used the word "selective" when he meant "specialism". There is no limit on the number of specialisms or the number of specialist schools. They are comprehensive. Only 5 per cent. of specialist schools operating in 2000 retained some historic element of selection. Of the rest, less than 7 per cent. admitted children on the basis of aptitude.
Specialist schools are non-selective comprehensive schools. Professor Jesson's research showed that 53 per cent. of pupils in those comprehensive specialist schools obtained five or more A to C grades compared with 43 per cent. of pupils in similar intake comprehensive schools. That shows that the specialist school programme works in the interests of raising standards as well as outreach to the wider community.

Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Secretary of State agree that language learning should not be seen simply as a utilitarian exercise for those wishing to communicate with non-English speakers, but as something that can enrich a person's entire educational and cultural experience? In that context, does he support schemes such as Sheffield's multilingual city initiative, which seeks to spread language learning throughout the community? Sheffield nursery schools have very high rates of language learning which children then take with them throughout their lives.

Mr. Blunkett: The earlier a child can engage with other languages, the more successful that will be. I commend that and many other schemes that have developed, not only language tasters for nursery schools

but those providing links with other parts of the world using information technology, including the multilingual programme that I have commended in the city of Sheffield. My only regret is that I learned a language called Esperanto at school. It was a very good idea at the time, but it got me into certain difficulties at the age of 16 when I used it in Paris.

Charlotte Atkins: Is it not the case that specialist schools under this Government are very different from those under the previous Government, in that they must ensure that a third of their budget is shared with the local community? In addition, the Government are promoting joint bids, so that two high schools can bid jointly for specialist status. Specialist schools are encouraged to share their resources with the community with after-school clubs and so on, so that instead of the winner-takes-all approach of the previous Government, our specialist vision is about sharing resources and improving diversity throughout our communities.

Mr. Blunkett: A number of joint bids have already been approved. I want to see many more, particularly in areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency, where there are two schools within one small community. I want the collaborative approach to the bidding process to be extended so that schools talk with other schools and the education authority about which would be most appropriate for a particular specialism, and they work it through with their primary school feeders and the other secondary schools in the area. I want to ensure that they then reach out to the community so that the specialism is available to all, including adult learners.

Oral Answers to Questions — Exclusions

Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the Government's policy on the exclusion of pupils from schools. [157917]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): We have received a number of representations from hon. Members, the head teacher associations, local education authorities, schools and parents, many of whom welcome the extra investment that the Government are making in educating excluded pupils and providing in-school units for disruptive pupils.

Mr. Amess: Will the Government please reconsider their ridiculous policy of setting targets for the number of children excluded from schools? In particular, will the Minister reflect on the damaging effects of circular 10/99, which has meant that in my constituency when a child was caught bringing drugs into school and the parents appealed, the child was reinstated on the basis of being found with drugs but not caught selling them? Does she appreciate how damaging that is to the morale of teachers and, in particular, the effect that it has had on the headmaster?

Jacqui Smith: I have corresponded with the hon. Gentleman about that matter. We have listened to head teacher associations and strengthened our guidance to exclusion appeals panels. My right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State has made it clear that we do not expect head teachers to keep disruptive children in schools, and that we do not expect appeals panels to reinstate children excluded for selling drugs.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right for the Government to give schools that have a disproportionate number of children with very challenging behaviour every support, and that targets for exclusions should not be set where the local circumstances make it clear that they are unrealistic?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right. We need to provide support for schools, which is why schools have welcomed the resources that we are making available for these purposes. This Government are making available 10 times the amount of money made available by the previous Government. As a result, there are 1,000 learning support units in our schools providing the support that disruptive pupils need. The removal of those pupils from the classroom enables children to learn and teachers to teach. Such initiatives, and the money to back them up, were noticeably lacking under the previous Government.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is the Minister concerned about children who have had to be excluded from school because they have contracted tuberculosis? What talks is she having with her colleagues in the Department of Health about reinstating the screening and vaccination programme that the Government dropped several years ago?

Jacqui Smith: I have had discussions with my colleagues in the Department of Health, and the vaccination programme is being reinstated. However, the head teacher and the health authorities involved in the recent case in Leicestershire have made it clear that the children attending the school received screening where it was necessary, and that they were easily treated. Action in that regard is being taken by my Department and the Department of Health, and by local health and education authorities.

Mr. John Hayes: How does the Minister reconcile her answer on exclusions with the maintenance and imposition of arbitrary exclusion targets? Those targets force schools to put up with disruptive and often violent pupils, who damage the opportunities of other children and undermine the morale of teachers already doing a very tough job. In addition, the targets call into question the judgment of governors, who make every effort to put first the interests of the whole school. Will the Minister take this opportunity to abandon those arbitrary targets and to put her trust in the professional judgment of heads and teachers? In that way she will back up our schools, governors, parents and pupils.

Jacqui Smith: We do trust the professional judgment of our head teachers. We also accept what they have made clear to us—that they need the resources to support them in dealing with disruptive pupils before they get as far as exclusion, and in making sure that excluded pupils also receive the sort of education that they need outside schools. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) recently admitted

that when exclusion levels trebled under the previous Government, excluded pupils received as little as two to three hours' education a week.
I recall from my time as a teacher that, under the previous Government, the lack of resources and the fact that there were no learning support units in place meant that there was no choice other than to exclude a child or do nothing. This Government have provided 10 times more resources for schools and local education authorities than did the previous Government. We trust the professionalism of head teachers, and we have made available to schools and local education authorities the resources that they need to deal with disruptive pupils.

Oral Answers to Questions — Schools (Ilford, South)

Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on direct support given by his Department to schools in Ilford, South since May 1997. [157918]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Schools in Ilford, South received over £0.5 million through the school standards grant in 2000–01, and will receive more than £1.1 million in this financial year. Since 1997, they have also been allocated over £3 million through the new deal for schools. All schools in Redbridge have benefited from increases of £33.3 million in the education standard spending assessment.

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. When I visited one of the high schools in my constituency which has technology college status, the head teacher told me that she had never had so much money. The school serves the most deprived part of my constituency. People from all over the world live there, and the parents of the children at the school speak probably as many as 100 different languages. Is it not a good sign that the Government are providing resources for those priorities? Can my right hon. Friend please ensure that the programmes that are already in place and the sure start programme, which is also benefiting my constituency, will continue for the next five years?

Ms Morris: I am pleased to hear of the success of the schools in my hon. Friend's constituency. I record my thanks to the teachers in those schools. The improvements in results at all age groups have been faster than the national average and that is down to the hard work of teachers and support assistants. I pay tribute to them. It is interesting that the message that we have had from the head teacher in my hon. Friend's constituency is exactly the same as that from the infants school in Worcestershire. There is more money, they have never had so much money and they welcome it. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) said, we trust the professional judgment of teachers, and that is their message. I am delighted to reiterate that the increase in funding for education over the past four years will continue in the next Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sixth Forms (Lancashire)

Mr. Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on the impact of his future funding proposals for sixth forms in schools in Lancashire. [157919]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): Schools can only gain from our proposals because their funding levels are protected by our real-terms guarantee: that their funding will be maintained at the 2000–01 level plus an annual uprating, provided that their numbers do not fall. This is an unprecedented guarantee. Schools have never before had a commitment to guarantee their real-terms funding in this way.

Mr. Jack: I do not think that the head of the Lytham St. Anne's high technology college in my constituency would have understood much of the Minister's answer. The words from the Dispatch Box would give him little comfort about the fact that he is still struggling to deliver the new A-level curriculum. In addition, there is growing suspicion, now that the learning am skills councils are responsible for funding sixth-form education, about whether there will be discrimination against schools with a traditional sixth form. Can the Minister make an unequivocal statement today that the learning and skills councils will not discriminate against schools with traditional sixth forms and that such schools will be properly funded in future?

Mr. Wicks: We have provided extra resources for curriculum 2000 for the new AS-level regime. Today I have given an unprecedented real-terms guarantee about the funding of those schools. I am sure that that will be good news for the head teacher, pupils and parents of that school. With the new learning and skills councils, which take over funding from April 2002, there will be a new regime. We are consulting and listening hard. It is important for each and every school with a sixth form that the funding is maintained. The role of schools with sixth forms is paramount in our education policy.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not a fact that the sixth forms at schools such as Haberghan and St. Theodore's in Burnley, like those in the rest of Lancashire, will be able to go forward and build on their success of the past four years and that they have nothing to worry about? Nobody should be putting scare stories around about what the Government are doing.

Mr. Wicks: I congratulate those schools on their work. With curriculum 2000 our young people at 16 can now study four or five subjects rather than be narrowed down to two or three. I hope that no political party will try to dig out from the skip of scaremongering stories to the

effect that we are against school sixth forms. We are not. Our guarantee ensures that their funding is safe with the Labour Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — Teacher Recruitment (North-East Lincolnshire)

Mr. Austin Mitchell: What proposals he has for improving teacher recruitment in North-East Lincolnshire. [157920]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Schools in north-east Lincolnshire are already benefiting from the fact that there are more teachers in post in England than at any time since 1984. They come on top of an expansion of the graduate teacher programme to 2,250 places in England in a full year, the introduction nationally of new courses for those returning to teaching and further improvements to teachers' pay, including a 6 per cent. rise for newly qualified teachers.

Mr. Mitchell: Like everyone else, I am delighted at the Government's efforts to improve teacher recruitment. That is only right and proper. However, we have a particular problem in north-east Lincolnshire in that more than 12 schools now have 49 vacancies: seven in technology, seven in English and seven in mathematics. It is important that kids from Grimsby should not be disadvantaged by any prolongation of this crisis. Will the Government consider special incentives for the recruitment of teachers to areas of particular difficulty and, within that, special incentives for recruitment to schools in disadvantaged areas?

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. There is a series of measures—apart from the general ones that I mentioned in my answer—aimed at shortage subjects and at those areas of the country that have particular difficulty in recruiting. This is the time of the year when vacancies occur, because it is the point at which teachers move from one school to another—clearly, every school in every local authority will be advertising. I know that my hon. Friend will be reassured that in each of the areas that he mentioned there have been large increases in applicants to start teacher training this year. I know that they will take a year to come through, whereas, of course, this September, the extra students—more than 2,400—who started training last year will have completed their training and will be joining schools. I very much hope that schools in his constituency will be able to recruit from them as well as from the record number of people who are leaving teacher training.

Business of the House

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): MONDAY 30 APRIL—Second Reading of the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill.

TUESDAY 1 MAY—Remaining stages of the Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY 2 MAY—Motion to approve standing orders relating to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.

Motion relating to the establishment of a working group on provision for former Members.

THURSDAY 3 MAY—Debate on the International Development White Paper—"Making Globalisation Work for the Poor" on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 4 MAY—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

MONDAY 7 MAY—The House will not be sitting.

TUESDAY 8 MAY—Remaining stages of the Private Security Industry Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY 9 MAY—Remaining stages of the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 10 MAY—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

FRIDAY 11 MAY—Private Member's Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first two weeks after the May day bank holiday will be as follows:

THURSDAY 10 MAY—Debate on "Creative Industries".

THURSDAY 17 MAY—Debate on employment zones.

The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 2 May, there will be a debate relating to a common asylum procedure and uniform status for persons granted asylum, in European Standing Committee B.

Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Wednesday 2 May 2001: European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: 13119/00, Towards a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for persons granted asylum. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee report: HC 28-viii (2000–1).]

Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Will she give the House some indication as to when we might expect the dates for the Whit recess to be announced? I am sure that Members on both sides will be interested in receiving those.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the next Treasury questions, scheduled for Thursday 10 May, will actually take place? The reason I ask is that if there is any

question that that session will not take place on 10 May, the House will be looking for an opportunity next week for the Chancellor to come here to share with us the concerns that he shared with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In his speech to that bank, he clearly expressed anxiety about the way in which the British economy might be affected by the fall-out from the American downturn. That is of particular interest to the House, because during the past four years we understood that the Chancellor had abolished the economic cycle. However, clearly, the economic cycle is back and the Dispatch Box would be the appropriate place for the Chancellor to explain why, having abolished it, it is back.
We also note that next week, on 1 May, the House will consider the remaining stages of the Social Security Fraud Bill. Will the Leader of the House identify whether there will be time for the House to look at another matter regarding social security? I realise the constraints and the narrowness of the debate on remaining stages, but as the appropriate Ministers will be on the Treasury Bench that day, I am sure that the House would like the opportunity to question them about the £3.5 million the Government have spent on advertising benefit fraud, especially when it turns out that the advertising merely resulted in a distance learning package for those who want to learn how to do it.
Finally, we note today, from our monitors, that the announcement has been made of the 15 so-called people's peers. The right hon. Lady is deeply involved in this procedure and will be aware that when the Government axed the hereditary peers, they promised that, during this Parliament, they would set up a cross-party Committee of both Houses to address future reforms of another place. Despite our pressing them to do so, and our willingness to serve on it, they have not done so, but have announced the people's peers. Surprisingly, we note that the 15, chosen from 3,000 applicants, include three professors and seven knights—people who I am sure will make a valuable contribution, but who would otherwise have been obvious candidates under the normal procedures. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady could tell us what exactly the Government's definition of the people is these days.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady asked me for an indication of the dates of the Whitsun recess, which slightly surprises me as I have observed during the time that I have been in this post that every time that we announce the dates of a recess, someone on the Conservative Benches complains that we have only just come back from one. As we have only just come back from the Easter recess, I will bear the hon. Lady's observations in mind, but I am not in a position to give her the dates today.
The hon. Lady asked me about the Chancellor finding an opportunity to come to the House. I was really quite surprised by her remarks because my right hon. Friend has never ever suggested that the Government had abolished the business cycle. Indeed, it is precisely because we know mat the business cycle continues to exist, and will always continue to exist, that he has placed such emphasis on so managing the economy that we can have economic stability and stable economic policy, even as the business cycle proceeds. So, far from ever having suggested that there was no such thing as the economic or business cycle, my right hon. Friend has clearly always understood the opposite, but understood also that it is the


duty of Government to try to mitigate the ups and downs of the business cycle. The Conservative party signally failed to do that in all the years in which it was in power.
The hon. Lady asked me about the new list of peers—of course those appointments were made by the Appointments Commission—and she appeared to suggest that in some way the current procedures are defective. I have not had much time to scrutinise the list, but I understand that significantly more women and more people from the ethnic minorities have been appointed than was the case under the previous system. That seems to me to he evidence of good judgment on the commission's part. However, the principal difference is that this procedure is open and transparent, and that it is not a matter of peers being appointed simply on the decision and the judgment of the Prime Minister, which had always been the case under previous Prime Ministers. It is time that the Conservative party gave my right hon. Friend credit for being the first Prime Minister ever to give away patronage.
The hon. Lady then asked me about the issue of social security advertising—

Mrs. Browning: What about the joint Committee?

Mrs. Beckett: I beg her pardon; I must have lost that question in my notes. Yes, the Government intend to pursue joint discussions about how we handle the future development of the upper House. I recognise, and am pleased that the hon. Lady has placed it on the record, that the Conservative party is not unwilling to take part in such discussions. We shall certainly bear that in mind and we hope that we shall be able, over time, to get some agreement on how the further reform of the upper House should work.
The final issue that the hon. Lady raised with me was that of Government advertising, and she suggested in particular that Ministers from the Department of Social Security should be discussing the issue of DSS advertising. I thought that she gave the impression that she believed that this was misplaced spending on the Government's part. It may be slightly unfortunate for the hon. Lady that it is the case, as I am sure that she must now be aware, that, in real terms, the expenditure on Government advertising in this year is very close to the expenditure undertaken by the Government of her party in 1987. Of course, what is particularly unfortunate is that the hon. Lady chose the example of social security, because if the previous Conservative Government had been prepared to spend a little more on advertising the consequences of their policies in 1987, perhaps many people would have understood that they were taking away their rights to widows' pensions.

Mr. Joe Ashton: May I thank my right hon. Friend and you, too, Mr. Speaker, for the motion which is on the Order Paper for next Wednesday to set up a working group on the problems of ex-MPs—a proposal that is long overdue? It is not intended to provide any financial assistance and it will not cost the taxpayer any money.

In the past, no inquiry has been held into what happens when MPs lose their seats or when they retire.

Mr. Eric Forth: Declare your interest.

Mr. Ashton: The right hon. Gentleman can jeer as much as he likes, but this is a serious business. More than 600 MPs have left the House—half of them have retired—since about 1987. No one knows what has happened to them, about their jobs or their problems, or about what advice they might need.

Mr. Tony Banks: We all know where Jonathan Aitken has been.

Mr. Ashton: Well, we expect silly jokes from people who have a good job, and who will have a good job after the election, but the fact is that after the previous election many people lost their jobs, including friends of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
The Data Protection Act 1998 has made it virtually impossible to find out such information on a voluntary basis because it is not possible to gain the relevant names and addresses. Those are the things that we should debate seriously next Wednesday.
I am sure that the motion has the support of the Chief Whips of every party. You have done a great deal of work on the issue, Mr. Speaker, so has the Leader of the House, and I should like to thank you both for that.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He makes a very important point: there is cross-party support for a discussion to find out whether a voluntary organisation could be set up. He also makes the important point, which I certainly had not properly taken on board in the past and which may not be familiar to all Members, that partly because of the Data Protection Act 1998, there is no record of what has happened to former MPs or, indeed, to their spouses, or widows or widowers. It is extremely difficult for people to make contact.
Of course people are occasionally in touch with the welfare organisations, but there are many more with whom no one is in touch, some of whom are in considerable difficulties. My hon. Friend and others—literally, on all sides of the House—are interested in finding out whether it is possible to form some sort of voluntary organisation of former Members, which can keep in touch so that people can gain advice and support from others in similar circumstances.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Presumably, Phoenix the calf cannot now qualify to be a people's peer, but will the Leader of the House assure us that that great national asset can be used in future Government advertising? Clearly, that would be a great deal more effective than some recent Government advertising.
May we have a statement on the role of the Electoral Commission? Clearly, the commission has a very important responsibility, and perhaps it should be involved in assessing the role of Government advertising in the 12 months before a general election. That is but one of the many questions now being asked about the forthcoming election. Many other important issues do not seem to have been properly tackled by the commission.


Before any possible date for Dissolution, can we have a report on the commission's role in adjudicating on such matters? Obviously, some regulation is required if only because the taxpayer is getting very bad value for money in relation to Government advertising.
The right hon. Lady has referred to the 1987 advertising expenditure of more than £104 million by the then Thatcher Government, most of which was spent on selling privatisation. The public are concerned not just in case there is an attempt to skew the electoral process, but because such advertising represents very bad value for money. May I also draw her attention to the obvious necessity to review the fact that we should have fixed-term Parliaments? Several of her colleagues believe that greater attention should be given to that proposal. Fixed terms would enable the Electoral Commission to adjudicate more effectively on such matters as advertising.

Mrs. Beckett: To answer the hon. Gentleman's main point about Government advertising, I point out that it is not a matter for the Electoral Commission. However, the issue is already under scrutiny by the National Audit Office, which always monitors the effectiveness and value of any Central Office of Information advertising campaign.
As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that, in some way, the advertising is unsuitable, unnecessary and totally ineffective, I point out that much of the advertising has been on police recruitment, and he may have noticed that there has been a substantial increase in recruits. Advertising has also led to an increase in teacher recruitment, and it has also encouraged people to join or to return to the health service, and there has been a huge take-up on that.
There has been advertising on issues—such as the working families tax credit, the national minimum wage, the children's tax credit and the minimum income guarantee—in which we think it is important for people to claim their entitlements. Sadly—to some extent, I suppose it is inevitable—if we wait for the news media to communicate to people that there is a new entitlement to, say, the children's tax credit that will start at the beginning of April, we would have to wait a very long time. The only way to ensure that people are aware of their entitlements is through Government advertising.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Phoenix the calf, at least the one thing that we can be fairly confident about is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will not be photographed sitting in a field cuddling it.

Ann Clwyd: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend shared my misfortune last week. Although I know that she was in this country, I was in Turkey where I turned on the television and watched CNN. I had the misfortune of viewing the shadow Secretary of State for Defence talking about foot and mouth in the United Kingdom. Members on both sides are rightly concerned about its impact on the tourism industry, but they would have heard him saying that foot and mouth was out of control. He referred to funeral pyres and to all the matters that have turned tourists off coming

to this country. Will my right hon. Friend advise the House as to what we should do with the Tories who continually talk Britain down?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. I was not able to watch CNN, so I did not see the interview to which she refers. Given that I understand that we are all anxious about the impact on tourism and the economy generally of the knock-on effects of the crisis, it is most unfortunate if any hon. Member, in whatever position or circumstance, acts in a way that causes greater alarm and despondency to be spread in what is an important market. I wish that I could say that it was uncharacteristic behaviour on the part of the hon. Gentleman to whom my hon. Friend referred, but I fear that I cannot.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Leader of the House recall that at the last business questions she said, following my encouragement, that she would consider scheduling a debate on the decisions concerning parliamentary pay and other associated matters? She has not done so, but I would be grateful if she would explain why. Does she not recall that, in the final weeks of the previous Parliament, she and her colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench were extremely keen that the then Government should table such matters for decision on the basis that existing Members would be better able to judge needs and that those who were leaving the House—either voluntarily or involuntarily—would receive pension help as a consequence? In the light of that and her own past behaviour, will she reflect further and schedule such a debate for next week?

Mrs. Beckett: As the right hon. Gentleman said, I heard the point that he made and I have given the matter consideration. He attends business questions, so he will be aware of the enormous pressure and the requests for many issues to be debated. It has not been possible to find time for this issue to be aired at this time.

Mr. David Chaytor: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the preparations in South Africa for the Rio plus 10 conference in September next year to mark the 10th anniversary of the 1992 Earth summit, set up to establish greater international co-operation on environmental policy? In view of the crisis in international environmental policy caused by the decision of the United States Government to oppose the Kyoto protocol, will she find time in the near future for a debate so that we can consider the response of all relevant Departments to that conference?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He takes a keen interest in the issue, which he assiduously pursues. However, I cannot find time to have such a debate on the Floor of the House in the near future, although he might consider the opportunities offered by Westminster Hall. It strikes me that although the debate on the international development White Paper will focus on globalisation and its impact on the poor, other aspects of world development also impinge on the poor, and the environment is one of them. Far be it from me to impinge on the prerogatives of the Chair, but my hon. Friend might try to fit the matter into the context of that debate.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The whole House will have been disappointed with the right hon. Lady's


response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) about the Senior Salaries Review Board report, especially as it relates to information technology. She has announced a debate on former Members, but seems to have ignored the SSRB's recommendation that future Members need the relevant decision to be made before the general election. Most decisions on information technology in this place occur without a debate on the Floor of the House, but will she at least table a motion—perhaps also for debate on Wednesday—to set up a group to ensure that all Members of Parliament are entitled to a supplied computer when they arrive? They would receive such equipment in any other job. That would save hundreds of thousands of pounds that will be wasted if the decision to supply that equipment is not taken before the election.

Mrs. Beckett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am aware that he has a keen interest in such issues and is a campaigning member of the Information Committee. However, I must explain two things. First, it is clear from the SSRB report and many other discussions that a considerable amount of work and planning needs to be done before the new systems are fully operational. I understand his anxiety about newly elected Members and about making decisions in a changing context. However, I am not clear that hon. Members will be satisfied with the service available to them if the kit from central supply is provided in the immediate aftermath of the election, as he suggests. The SSRB report makes it clear that a substantial transitional period is needed.
Secondly, next week, the Modernisation Committee is taking evidence from hon. Friends who have been involved in such matters. That is, in part, because of concern expressed about the adequacy of IT support and how it will need to be developed substantially to implement the SSRB report recommendations.

Ms Debra Shipley: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to allow MPs a free vote on hunting and that that will be held in Government time?

Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend knows, the Hunting Bill is in the upper House. The Government's approach has always been to allow a free vote on it. I have no reason to suppose that that stance is likely to change.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Leader of the House comment on the state of the approach roads to the Palace of Westminster on Tuesday, especially as those people who intend to protest in my constituency on that day have not sought the approval of the Metropolitan police for that line of route?

Mrs. Beckett: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, although I am not sure that the protesters have a line of route. He will appreciate that it is not wholly a matter for me. However, I am aware that the House authorities have been in discussion with the Metropolitan police who are mindful of their responsibilities to the citizens of London and the House.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Government have made many good efforts to help tourism over the past few weeks, and my right hon. Friend will be aware that

Calderdale has a thriving tourism industry. However, is she aware that Tory-controlled Calderdale council, in a cost-cutting exercise, has closed almost all the public toilets in Calderdale, thus sending a message that if people come to Halifax and the Calder valley, they cannot spend a penny? Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the effects that that is having on tourism and, obviously, on public hygiene?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I was not aware of the serious impact of that decision, and I can perfectly understand her concern on behalf of her constituents, let alone potential visitors to her constituency. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor of the House, but it sounds to me like a classic for Westminster Hall.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: It is disappointing that even in what appear to be the dying days of this Parliament the Government have not introduced a debate in their time on the national drugs strategy. Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the impact and seriousness of the problem facing the country, the effect on crime figures and on expense on education, health and social services, and the fact that in the past four years there has been only one debate on the subject in Government time, and introduce a debate as soon as she can?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I take the hon. Lady's point that those are important issues, but as she, too, regularly attends business questions she will be aware that it is only one of many subjects of substance which the House likes to debate from time to time, and it is not always easy to find time for debates on the Floor. However, I recommend to her, as I have done to others, the attractions of the extra debating time available in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem of term-time workers? Thousands of workers, mainly women, in educational establishments throughout the country, particularly universities, are laid off during the holidays. They receive no pay and are denied benefits during that time, so for about 20 weeks of the year they have absolutely nothing to live on. Many women took the job on the basis that they were told by the Benefits Agency that they would qualify for benefits, and those benefits have now been stopped. During the time that they are off work, they receive no national insurance contributions, which will obviously have a detrimental effect on their pensions.
The problem has gone on for nearly five years and is being considered by the Law Lords in the other place. Will my right hon. Friend provide for a statement to be made to the House on how long it will take for a judgment to be made, bearing it in mind that many of these women basically have nothing to live on?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As far as I can recall, this is a problem of considerable standing. I seem to remember it being raised some 15 or more years ago. He is right to express concern about the possibility that people have been given advice that has turned out not to be accurate. I fear that I cannot assure him that there will be a statement on the matter because the court case will continue in the near future,


but I can certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in case there is any information that he can give him.

Sir George Young: The Leader of the House has not announced time in the next two weeks for consideration of Commons amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, leaving it inevitably vulnerable to an early Dissolution of the House. She will know that the Bill contains a measure that has all-party support, namely the introduction of free nursing care in nursing homes. She will also have heard the Prime Minister yesterday commit the Government to overturning a decision on the future of community health councils. Are the Government seriously considering holding up a measure that is popular so that they can proceed with a measure that is unpopular?

Mrs. Beckett: With respect, there is no question of the Government holding that up. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the Bill is still in the House of Lords and, indeed, that the Lords have not yet finished their consideration. He makes an important point about the further consideration needed in this House at some stage, but it is not usual to schedule that before the Bill has finished its proceedings in another place, as he will appreciate.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been in correspondence with the trustees of the pension fund on several occasions regarding the need to deal with the financial position of Members of or near retirement age who retired mainly in 1987 and before? Because of their salary at the time they almost certainly receive a pittance of a pension. As there is a substantial surplus in the pension fund, would it not be right for us to look carefully at what can be done to assist Members who, through no fault of their own, retired on such a small pension?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend. Indeed, when I recently made inquiries, I was astonished to discover that only 8 per cent. of retired Members who now draw pensions from the parliamentary pension fund are entitled to the full retirement pension, whatever its level. However, I fear that my hon. Friend is wrong to believe that there is a surplus in the pension fund; there was a fairly substantial surplus but decisions taken by the Opposition when in government resulted in that surplus disappearing. Indeed, according to the Government Actuary, there is a potential for the fund to go into deficit.
I therefore fear that I cannot undertake to do as my hon. Friend suggests, but I acknowledge the point that he made. This is a matter for the House and if it decides to set up a voluntary organisation for Members who have retired from the House, voluntarily or otherwise, I hope that it will be handled more expeditiously in future.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to examine documents from the

Foreign and Commonwealth Office that were released on 19 April under the 30-year rule? In one of those documents, the British ambassador to Ireland, Mr. John Peck, wrote to the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home on 16 December and commented on the aftermath of the 1970 arms trial in the Republic. He said:
whatever the verdict, if Mr. Haughey was not part of a conspiracy, he was at any rate up to the neck in a scheme to import arms illegally.
Today's edition of the Irish Independent reports:
Senior Garda officers reported on a meeting between Charles Haughey and a senior IRA man months before the arms crisis rocked the Government, according to documents held in the Dail.
Will the Leader of the House agree to provide time for a debate on the content of those FCO documents and any additional information that is made available by the Irish Republic, bearing in mind the strong suspicion in Northern Ireland that some Ministers in the Irish Government at that time played a big part in assisting in the creation of the Provisional IRA, which then gave us 30 years of murder and terror in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Leader of the House will be able to reply.

Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the issue in the 30-year-old documents to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I have no doubt that those documents will be the subject of much analysis and discussion. Although he raised substantial and weighty issues, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future. I believe that Northern Ireland questions will be held the week after next, and he may find an opportunity to raise the matter then. I suspect, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will decline to take responsibility for something that happened 30 years ago.

Ms Julie Morgan: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that people suffering from multiple sclerosis are concerned about the non-availability of the drug beta interferon for certain forms of the illness. I have a number of constituents who are anxiously awaiting the decision of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Can my right hon. Friend suggest anything that would cause NICE to make an early decision, as my constituents and many other MS sufferers and their families are awaiting that decision with anxiety and are currently in limbo?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I too, have constituents who are concerned about the matter, as I expect most hon. Members do. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. We all understand the anxiety of those who hope and believe that they might benefit from the availability of such treatment. One of the reasons that it is being considered by NICE is that not everyone does benefit, although of obviously people hope that they will benefit. Everyone wants the consideration by NICE to be thorough and scientifically sound.

Miss Anne McIntosh: As the right hon. Lady knows, Sunday 29 April is census day. Will she join me in thanking the teams of volunteers who have been


delivering forms throughout the country? Can she assure the House that every precaution has been taken in the delivery and collection of forms to ensure that there will be no threat of the spread of foot and mouth disease? Can she also give me an assurance that every property that is occupied has been registered on the electoral roll for census purposes and will receive a form, so that we can have a full census of rural as well as urban areas?

Mrs. Beckett: As far as I am aware, it is believed that every property has been included, but I shall draw the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. A great deal of thought and discussion has gone into the handling of the census, in order to make sure that nothing is done that might exacerbate matters related to foot and mouth disease. The hon. Lady may recall that some time ago, the person who is the overall head of the census operation made it plain that careful thought had been given to that, and that every effort would be made to ensure that there were no problems.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while it has been a pretty good day for Lady Quango and the other 14 people's peers, it has also been a relatively good day for 1,500 women canteen workers who have been battling for 18 years to get equal pay? Will there be a statement about the fact that now, a meeting with some unreconstructed socialists like myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and other members of the miners group has finally resulted in a meeting with the brand-new Minister for Energy? The issue has been resolved and the canteen women will get an average of £10,000 apiece. Some of them will receive up to £40,000. They have struggled for 18 years, and have been bailed out by a combination of Labour Members and a Minister in the new Labour team.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to a very welcome decision. I congratulate both of my hon. Friends, who have campaigned over a long period and assisted in putting the case, and my hon. Friend the Minister, who made the relevant decision.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I endorse entirely the comments of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), and I am delighted that the debate is taking place.
My question relates indirectly to foot and mouth disease and the measures introduced by the Government to give business rate relief to certain rural areas affected by the outbreak. I have had some support and I have had the ear of the Minister for the Environment, who heads the rural taskforce. It is extraordinary that Macclesfield, which has a huge, sparsely populated rural area in which livestock is the major agricultural occupation, is not eligible for assistance under the scheme. My constituency is not the only area affected. Will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Minister to make a statement on the issue, so that he can explain what action he is taking to include within the scheme Macclesfield and other areas that are currently omitted?

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend to come to the House again in the very

near future, but I can certainly draw to his attention the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper concerns. I am confident that he will want to inform the hon. Gentleman about the discussions that have been taking place on the issue that he raises.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Now that British Steel has admitted that it lied to the work force of H. H. Robertson for business reasons, I have written to all of the 28 other hon. Members whose constituents are affected by the closure. In view of the very important issue that the decision raises and the fact that it could bring into disrepute the actions of many honourable company directors throughout the country, will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the subject, so that the same outrage cannot happen again?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend's concern will be shared by the other hon. Members whose constituents are affected, although I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate or statement on the matter in the near future. I remind him of next week's DTI questions, as he might find an opportunity to raise the matter then.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Leader of the House should be aware that we are now halfway through the Committee stage of the International Criminal Court Bill, which she has listed for completion on 9 May. The Committee is considering an 80-something clause Bill, but we are now debating clause 2 stand part. Before she says that our progress is the result of an Opposition filibuster, I point out that we are discussing immensely important matters. I made a speech during which 41 interventions were made, mostly by Labour Members. We were discussing the operation of the statute of Rome and its important consequences. We must have further debates about universal jurisdiction and diplomatic immunity, and provide an opportunity for the Government to explain to Amnesty International and others why there is no such provision. It is immensely important that the crucial issues that are involved continue to be fully and properly debated. Will she reconsider the timetabling of the final stages of the Bill for 9 May, so that we can extend the Committee stage and have a proper debate on them? That may also create an opportunity to discuss the office costs allowance and other matters.

Mrs. Beckett: I have not been following closely the progress of the Bill in Committee, but I shall make some inquiries about the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Sadly, there is often difference of opinion among hon. Members about the time that is required to consider different aspects of proposed legislation, and I cannot undertake to take the decision that he suggests. Indeed, the House is bound by the programme motion that it carried. I shall, however, draw his remarks to the attention of the Minister who is in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Saturday 28 April is workers' memorial day, which draws attention to the fact that 335,000 workers worldwide lose their lives each year as a result of their work. Will she give some thought to the possibility of erecting a plaque to commemorate the


workers in British industry who have lost their lives? I think that that would focus wonderfully the attention of this place on the need for appropriate health and safety legislation.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the lives that are lost every year as a result of accidents and errors in the workplace. It is not for me to decide whether the House considers erecting a plaque, but he is right to draw our attention to the extent to which the issue should be of concern to hon. Members from all parties, as I am sure that it is.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the right hon. Lady consider with her ministerial colleagues the problem of unannounced visits by Ministers to other hon. Members' constituencies, which I fear might be a growing practice? She will remember our correspondence on the fact that she found herself at the canal museum in my constituency just before Easter without having let me know of her visit. I am sure that she inadvertently failed to do so, and when I remonstrated with her about the visit, I received a full and sufficient apology. Of course, I am not trying to pursue that. However, the incident gave rise to concern because the press and local councillors knew of the visit, but the Member of Parliament did not. My secretary tells me that it is possible for hon. Members to find out the postcode of any place on the parliamentary database in seconds or minutes. It is essential that Ministers take the point seriously.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right, and Ministers take the point seriously. He said that he was sure that I visited his constituency without notifying him inadvertently. He knows that that is the case because that formed part of the explanation that I sent him. Unfortunately, my office, which is most assiduous and conscientious about such matters, was misinformed.
However, I fear that the hon. Gentleman's secretary is not wholly correct. I know from experience—not of the visit that we are considering—correspondence and advice given to constituents by advice bureaux that the postcode is not always an adequate identifier of constituencies. All Ministers' private offices always take steps to ensure that local Members of Parliament are notified of visits. I hope that the offices of Opposition Front-Bench Members take the same steps; I am not sure whether that is always the case. We shall continue to pursue the policy.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: I ask my right hon. Friend to seek assurances from Opposition Members about holding sensible debate on asylum issues, including during a pending general election campaign. In a council by-election that took place in my constituency last week, we retained a seat on a 4 per cent. swing to us. The Conservative candidate, whose name is Richard, but he likes to be called Dick, put out literature, which states:
Elderly people are blocking vital beds in our hospitals because of the closure of local homes for them to be transferred to. Yet people who come to this country and have paid nothing get put up at the best hotels for free".
Can we have an assurance from Opposition Members that they will not use gutter politics when debating such a sensitive issue?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Leader of the House.

Foot and Mouth

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, I would like to make a statement on the foot and mouth outbreak.
As I did on eight occasions before the Easter break, and have done once already this week in a session with the Select Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I wish to update the House on the latest position on the disease, set out the measures that the Government are taking and give hon. Members the opportunity to raise points with me. I also wish to inform the House about the outcome of the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg this week and of my bilateral discussions there with the Dutch Agriculture Minister.
As of 11 am today, there had been 1,481 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease. For ease of reference, the House will wish to know that I am putting details of the number of cases in each constituency in the Library today. They will be updated daily. I am also making available to individual Members full details of the cases in their own constituencies, to supplement the early warning system that has been in place for some weeks.
More than 2 million animals have now been slaughtered for disease control purposes. Around three quarters are sheep, 20 per cent. are cattle and 5 per cent. are pigs. A further 475,000 animals have been slaughtered under the welfare slaughter scheme.
The latest figures show that 152,000 animals await slaughter and 218,000 carcases await disposal in Great Britain. The backlog of data not entered on the database that holds those figures has been greatly reduced. None the less, the figures still tend to overstate the position. There is a disposal backlog in Devon of around 85,000 animals and we are addressing that as a top priority. There are no significant disposal backlogs in other areas of the country.
We continue to work closely with the Department of Health on the public health issues surrounding the various disposal routes. There are no completely risk-free options. Updated and consolidated guidelines were published on Tuesday. The method of disposal in each case is the safest and most effective in the circumstances. The House will be aware that the numbers of confirmed cases continue to fall, week on week. From the highest point of 43 cases a day, on average, in the week ending 1 April, the average number of cases has fallen to 16 in the week to 22 April.
We have been able to lift restrictions in nine different areas where there have been no new cases for 30 days and thorough veterinary and serological testing has taken place. As a result, the tighter movement restrictions associated with infected areas have been lifted from some 5,000 sq km—1.25, million acres—of the country, affecting about 12,500 farms.
These figures show that we are continuing to bear down on the outbreak. We can be cautiously optimistic about the future course of the epidemic. The scientific advice was that the single most important action we should take against the spread of the disease was to reduce the time between report and slaughter to 24 hours. That has been our policy and it has been shown to be the right one.
The Government's policies for slaughter on infected premises within 24 hours, and on contiguous premises within 48 hours, have been crucial to the control of


the epidemic. Following formal advice from the chief scientific adviser and the chief veterinary officer, I can today announce for England a broadening of the existing areas of discretion for local veterinary judgment in the light of the developing disease situation. The devolved Administrations will be making their own statements.
The joint advice from the chief scientist and the chief vet follows detailed consultation with the veterinary profession and with the expert scientific group advising the Government on the course of the disease. This development is not, as some have reported, a relaxation; its purpose is to improve the achievement of the policy by refining the instructions given to staff in the field.
The key points are as follows: we will continue to kill all animals that are dangerous contacts, which will include animals on a significant number of neighbouring farms and beyond; on other contiguous premises, susceptible animals will be killed. Cattle may, however, be spared if there is adequate biosecurity. This will be a matter for local veterinary judgment, taking account of all the circumstances. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already published guidance—agreed with the veterinary profession—on the biosecurity measures that farmers can take to help protect their animals from infection. When cattle are not culled, they will be subject to regular veterinary patrols.
These refinements can be expected to provide some relief from automatic slaughter of cattle. They will not lead to a change in the policy of culling of pigs and sheep on contiguous premises. Pigs pose a high disease risk and can spread the virus. Sheep can carry the disease without showing symptoms, thereby causing further undetected spread.
Following consultation with interested parties, we shall be providing for the special circumstances of rare breeds of sheep, and of moorland and hefted flocks, based on tight biosecurity coupled with serological testing. Guidance on this will be issued to staff on the ground very shortly. These are complex matters of scientific and veterinary judgment. The new arrangements have to be right, to ensure that they meet real needs and contribute to, rather than hinder, disease control.
I would also like to update the House on the position regarding vaccination. The Government have given serious consideration to a cattle vaccination strategy in north Cumbria and possibly Devon, given the particular issues in those regions and, especially, the intensity of infection in certain areas and the forthcoming turnout of cattle from indoor housing to outdoor grazing. The Government accept the case for vaccinating cattle in those areas, but only if the vaccination programme is supported by a substantial majority of the farming community, by veterinarians, by the wider food industry and—I believe this to be crucial—by consumers.
As I told the Agriculture Committee on Monday, that level of support is simply not there, and the signs are that it will not now be achieved. Without that support, a vaccination programme would be very difficult to implement on the ground. We continue our discussions with all those who would be affected, but the case for a vaccination programme becomes less compelling as the number of daily confirmed cases and the weight of infection in the hotspot areas continues to fall.
I turn now to the livestock welfare disposal scheme. In the first week of April, 53,000 animals were slaughtered under the scheme, rising to 143,000 in the second week

of April and more than 150,000 last week. Opening the scheme generated a great many applications, at one stage apparently totalling close to 2 million animals. All applications have now been checked. This process has removed many of the duplicated applications—one particular producer put in 14 separate applications for the same animals. There are now applications covering some 1.3 million animals. Well over half a million of those animals have now been dealt with—either slaughtered and disposed of or withdrawn voluntarily, or because there was no welfare case to answer. By the end of today the backlog in Great Britain will stand at less than three quarters of a million animals, and we are on course to have completely removed the backlog by mid-May.
The welfare disposal scheme has been established to deal with severe welfare problems arising from the FMD movement restrictions that cannot be dealt with by other means. I am glad that we have been able to extend progressively the options available to farmers to deal with welfare issues, and to re-establish routes for their perfectly healthy livestock to be sold into the food chain.
As of Monday of this week farmers within infected areas, but outside the 3 km protection zones surrounding infected premises, have been able to enter healthy livestock into the food chain. As a result of those changes, the vast majority of farmers have practicable alternatives to the welfare disposal scheme. I am confident that the rate of withdrawals from the welfare scheme backlog will accelerate as a result.
In the re-establishment of routes into the food chain across Great Britain as whole, it is imperative for the payment rates for the livestock welfare disposal scheme not to act as a disincentive to farmers by providing more attractive financial options than the market itself. In order to ensure that, I am announcing today that payment rates for categories of livestock normally slaughtered for meat or meat products have been revised. All animals collected for slaughter or slaughtered on-farm from Monday 30 April will receive the new payment rates.
The rates for cull and draft ewes, new season lamb, clean cattle, and pigs are being revised to a level that represents about 70 per cent. of current market prices. For hoggets and cull sows, a higher rate of 80 per cent. is being established. Arrangements have been put in hand to ensure that all who have animals killed under the scheme are aware of the financial returns they will receive before they formally hand over their animals. I still intend the scheme to be reviewed on 22 May; meanwhile, I shall discuss with the industry the separate market-related issues in respect of light lambs and cull sows that would normally have gone for export. It would be misleading to expect an early resumption of export markets, but taxpayers cannot be expected to buy out the problem.
In my statement on 27 March, I outlined a number of actions flowing from our initial assessment of the origins and spread of the disease. The consultation on the proposed ban on pigswill closed on 10 April. We received about 150 responses, nearly all of which favoured a ban. A number of detailed issues were raised; we are considering them as a matter of urgency, and I expect to make an announcement next week. We have also received a good many comments on our proposed 20-day standstill period, after movements on farms, for sheep, goats and cattle. Again, most representations are in favour, but a number of highly technical issues have emerged.


Because of the considerable interest that has been expressed, I have decided—in response to an explicit request from the National Farmers Union—to extend the consultation period for a further month from the initial deadline of 11 May. Cross-departmental examination of the controls on commercial and personal imports of meat and meat products is well under way, and I shall have more to say about the matter in the near future.
At this week's meeting of the Agriculture Council, I reported in full to EU colleagues the progress that we have made to combat FMD, and acknowledged the help given us by the Commission and other member states. As before, there was strong support for our efforts and those of my Dutch colleague, and for our determination to eradicate FMD. At my instigation and that of Laurens Brinkhorst, the EU will convene a conference later in the year to examine all aspects of our experience of this disease—in particular, that of the UK and the Netherlands—to help shape policy for the future, including vaccination policy.
Combating foot and mouth disease remains the Government's top priority, but as the disease is brought under control questions arise from farmers and others in the rural economy about options for the future. We therefore intend to work in partnership with farmers and others to identify ways of assisting the recovery of the farming sector. We shall focus in particular on farmers directly affected by FMD who face choices about their futures, and on the regions of the United Kingdom that have been hit hardest by FMD—especially, of course, Cumbria and Devon. As a first stage, the Government will concentrate on the need to provide high-quality, targeted business and agronomic advice to individual farmers, and will explore ways of improving marketing in the livestock sector, to the benefit of the whole food chain. The Government also intend to help livestock farmers to decide the optimum basis on which restocking should take place, taking into account the desirability of rebuilding flocks and herds that are high quality, disease-free, extensively reared and farmed in environmentally sustainable ways. As a further component of our recovery strategy, we shall work with the industry to develop insurance options against both animal disease and the economic consequences that disease brings, and we will share our thinking on that with our partners in the European Union.
Work to help farmers emerge from the crisis has begun, and will form part of the Government's long-term strategy for helping UK farming to restructure in sustainable, market-orientated and environmentally responsible ways; at the same time, it will take forward our policy for bringing about common agricultural policy reform.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister for making his lengthy statement available to me a little while before he made it in the House. I warmly welcome the improving picture that he has been able to paint of the state of the crisis and the spread of foot and mouth disease. I would like to take this opportunity to express again our warm appreciation of the work of all those service personnel, vets and others whose efforts on the ground, in the front line of tackling the crisis, have helped to reduce the spread of foot and mouth disease.

I shall start with the improvement in the figures, because that is crucial in assessing the progress that has been made and also, perhaps, in judging the merits of the other policy changes that the Minister has announced. The Minister will recall that before the Easter recess I asked twice for his assurance that daily figures for slaughter and disposal would continue to be published throughout the recess. In fact, the daily publication of the figures ceased and was resumed only after a substantial public outcry.
It is important now to know whether the basis on which the daily figures for slaughter and disposal are calculated has been changed. For example, let us consider the problem of carcase disposal in Devon. The NFU advised on Tuesday that the sudden fall in the number of carcases awaiting disposal in Devon was not because more carcases had actually been disposed of but because the Ministry changed the definition of disposal. Now, apparently, the Minster counts a carcase as disposed of once it has been moved to a disposal site. Few people who live or work within the sight or smell of such disposal sites would agree with that definition.
If the improvement that the Minister claims is partly achieved by redefining disposal, it casts doubt on some of his other claims too. If one set of figures is manipulated, are others any more trustworthy? The fact that the Minister prevented me from talking to vets in the Ministry's regional office in Exeter last week does not inspire confidence that the Government are being entirely open. Will the Minister therefore tell the House exactly what changes have been made to the way in which those figures are calculated? Since his Ministry now—rightly—makes use of independent epidemiologists, will he allow an independent statistician to audit the figures that have been published since the outbreak started?
The Minister announced a change of policy today and he will understand that many people, including farmers, will be surprised by the suddenness of a change, which, despite his description of it, most people will see as a relaxation. A few days ago, the Government wanted to start vaccinating, which suggests that they believed that existing policies to control foot and mouth disease were inadequate. Now the Minister proposes to relax those same policies. When was the new formal advice from the chief scientist and the chief veterinary officer, to which the Minister referred, given to him? Will the Minister publish that advice today? Since this change of policy was announced by No. 10 Downing street just in time for the 10 o'clock news last night, can the Minister tell us when the decision was actually made?
No one wants a single healthy animal to be killed if that animal can be saved, but the surest way to minimise the incidence of animals being slaughtered is to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease. It is important that no risks should be run; policy must not be relaxed until it is safe to do so. Ending slaughter on contiguous farms now raises the question of why that policy has been maintained for so long. Have thousands of healthy animals been sacrificed in vain? We support any steps that save healthy animals from slaughter, provided those steps do not risk the further spread of the disease.
As culling on contiguous farms will apparently continue for sheep and pigs, can the Minister say whether the legal basis of such culls is clear? Will he confirm that his Ministry withdrew a court application to cull uninfected animals on contiguous farms in Anglesey recently? If cattle are not to be automatically culled on


contiguous farms, will tests be carried out promptly and regularly on those cattle instead? If such tests are not carried out on farms adjacent to infected premises, is there not a risk that foot and mouth disease could start to spread?
Have the Government ruled out the use of vaccination entirely? Does the Minister accept that the three tests that I have repeatedly set out, including yesterday in the House, are the right ones to assess whether vaccination should be used?
On the welfare disposal scheme, how long are farmers having to wait while their animals suffer before slaughter under this scheme occurs? The Minister will be aware of the public concern about the distress that some animals experience. If the backlog under the scheme is not cleared until the middle of May, is it true that some animals may by then have been waiting for six weeks?
As this crisis starts to pass its peak, does the Minister agree that attention must be paid to the origin of the outbreak? Is he aware that 15 parliamentary questions that I asked about this in March remain unanswered four weeks later? Will he undertake to answer all parliamentary questions that have been tabled by right hon. and hon. Members before any Dissolution of Parliament? Will he also assure us that, in the event of a Dissolution, the information that he promised today about the constituency spread of new cases will continue to be available to parliamentary candidates on a constituency basis throughout an election campaign?
Is the Minister aware that the Government's handling of foot and mouth disease is giving rise to more and more concern? Stories of muddle, delay and incompetence are still commonplace—telephones are not answered, faxes are ignored and contradictory advice and instructions are given. In many places, there is still a sense that no one is in charge. For example, can the Minister tell us who is in charge in Devon this morning?
The same muddle exists at a national level. Who is making the policy now—the Minister, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence? Last week, the chief scientist said that vaccination should be introduced to support the slaughter policy. The Minister agreed but the president of the National Farmers Union said no, so the policy was dropped. This week, the Minister and his advisers said that the cull of animals on contiguous farms was necessary to curb the spread of the disease. Then No. 10 spin doctors saw newspaper pictures of Phoenix, and the policy was changed.
When this crisis is finally resolved—and I repeated yesterday the four criteria by which that should be judged—there will have to be a full inquiry. Does the Minister agree that one key aspect of that inquiry will be to establish whether the spread of foot and mouth disease would have been very much less if the Government had learned the lessons of the 1967 outbreak and if they had acted on the timely advice that I and other Conservative Members have offered, on the record, at every stage during the past nine weeks?
This crisis has crippled our livestock industry, disfigured our environment and wrecked our tourist trade. It is costing families, businesses and taxpayers billions of pounds. It is a crisis that need not and should not have reached its present level. It is the Government's incompetence that allowed it to do so.

Mr. Brown: As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for his help and support. His

statement about the public officials dealing with the disease outbreak is genuinely welcome. He is right to thank officials working in a civilian capacity for different Government Departments, and the service personnel and the professional veterinary personnel in the private and public sectors who are helping to bear down on the disease. The whole House should thank those hard-working public servants who are all working for the common purpose of bringing this terrible outbreak of disease to an end, and to help the country get beyond it. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks in that regard.
I am less grateful for what the hon. Gentleman had to say about muddle and delay, and for his stories about telephones not being answered, and so on. In my experience, one only hears part of the story when such reports are put into the public domain. I do not think it sensible for anyone holding a responsible position in public life to go around attacking those who are trying to bring to an end this outbreak of disease as quickly as possible. Hard-working public servants are entitled to our support, not our condemnation. I am willing to meet individual Members of Parliament who want to raise particular issues with me. I have done my best to do so, as have other Ministers in the Department.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the figures for slaughterings and disposals. It is true that those figures were removed from the Department's website for a few days, but that was to ensure that they were accurate and consistent. The full set of figures was returned to the website on Good Friday, and the figures have continued to be updated ever since. We did not respond to pressure from anyone in that regard: our aim was simply to make sure that the information being provided was accurate.
I freely say to the hon. Gentleman that he is right to identify a problem in Devon. In my statement, I told the House that there is a difficulty with the backlog of carcase disposal in that county, but I strongly dispute that we are trying to deal with it by putting into the public domain figures that are not correct. We are trying to deal with the problem by clearing the backlog.
The hon. Gentleman alleges that I have prevented him from talking to vets. I do not know how I could do that. I can stop him going into Government buildings around the country to talk to civil servants who are trying to control the disease for the benefit of the country—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) must calm down.

Mr. Brown: I will not encourage publicity stunts—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I instructed the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton to calm down. She must calm herself.

Mr. Brown: The rules have not been made especially for the hon. Member for South Suffolk. I am taking the same line with all hon. Members. Of course I will agree to requests by hon. Members with regard to visits to Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food premises for purposes that relate to their constituencies. It is right to


continue with that policy, but I am not going to facilitate wholesale visits to Ministry premises all around the country in the middle of a disease outbreak.
I turn now to vaccination. The crucial issue in determining vaccination policy is consumer acceptance of such a policy. It is the consideration of consumer acceptance that drives the views of retailers, processors and farmers. I welcome the fact that other Ministers in the European Union have taken a similar view. The question of vaccination needs to be discussed in a rational and scientifically based manner once the outbreak has been brought to a conclusion.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk asked how we are prioritising our work under the welfare scheme, and talked about the backlog. We have asked the RSPCA to help us prioritise cases so that we get to the most needy ones first. The hon. Gentleman asked about scientific advice to me. It is based on the advice of the chief scientist and chief vet. The change in emphasis on the contiguous cull results from a conference that the chief vet held last Friday, where he consulted private sector and public sector veterinarians across the regions and in particular from affected regions. It is not surprising that a disease outbreak that has moved rapidly should require rapid responses in policy to deal with it. This is the response that, after consideration, the chief vet and chief scientist are recommending to me. I am more than willing to put their formal advice and the guidance given to veterinarians locally in the public domain.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would continue to update the information on constituency cases. Yes, I will place it on an updated basis in the House of Commons Library and will endeavour to place it elsewhere, so that all those with an interest can have continuing access to it, whether or not Parliament is sitting.
This is a serious disease outbreak. It is now moving towards its conclusion, but we will have to respond to further incidents. There will be outbreaks. It is not possible to say where they will occur or how many there will be, but advice to me is that there will be further outbreaks. We have to be ready to stamp on them where they occur and cull them out quickly. We will be able to achieve that far more easily if we have public backing for our policies, in particular the backing of the livestock industry, farmers and the broader rural community. Frankly, if the House can show some unity of purpose, it will reflect better on all of us in the days to come.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend has said that the vaccination of cattle is not feasible in present conditions. What about the vaccination of Herdwick sheep and other special sheep breeds as an addition or alternative to his policy of tight biosecurity and serum testing? Could we not have both policies introduced?

Mr. Brown: This is an important issue and we have given it substantial consideration and examination. The professional advice to me from the chief vet and others who advise him is that vaccinating sheep is not an option. The advice from John Thorley is that the National Sheep Association is opposed to vaccination, and there is a range

of reasons for that. Even for rare sheep breeds and special sheep breeds it would not be right to try to cull out the disease in hefted sheep as an automatic response. For that reason the proposal that I have explained to the House today is to manage them where they are and to test them in the autumn when they are brought down from the areas where they are extensively farmed.

Mr. Colin Breed: I thank the Minister for his statement and his usual courtesy in providing an early copy. This is welcome news and, indeed, a common sense approach to the situation. I should like to raise a number of points.
It is still disappointing that there is no news whatever about compensation for the over-30-months scheme. That has become quite an issue. Do I take it that the Government are not intending to give compensation for that particular problem? Surely it must be one of the easiest schemes to implement.
Will the Minister look at the situation concerning pedigree animals, particularly in respect of welfare disposal? Clearly, pedigree animals are not valued highly enough if entered into the welfare disposal scheme, although they suffer the same welfare problems as other animals, their value notwithstanding.
What assessment has the Minister made in respect of the percentage of infected animals that have been part of the contiguous cull? Bearing in mind the substantial number of animals that have been killed, it would be useful to know what he believes the actual number of infected animals to have been.
Will the Minister confirm that, today, there are still some new cases that are not in the existing infected zones—in areas that are somewhat remote from them? That is, of course, worrying.
Finally, on the pigswill consultations, I am sure that the Minister has received representations from those who will be substantially affected as regards whey feeding. There will be a major effect on cheese making—an important industry in many parts of the affected rural areas.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right; I have received representations about whey feeding and the proposed pigswill ban. I am looking closely at that and other issues related to the brewing industry, as part of a broader consideration—although, clearly, it is a discrete issue.
On new cases, I have already referred to the fact that we could expect sporadic outbreaks in different parts of the country. I understand that they occur for three main reasons: the movement of vehicles; the movement of people; and the movement of animals. I have placed advertisements in the farming press about biosecurity. In all my meetings with farmers, I emphasise the importance of biosecurity, farm by farm. The hon. Gentleman is right: if we are to defeat the disease, we must all work together and focus on the measures that are necessary—farm by farm—to prevent the disease from getting on to a farm and spreading from it.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the percentage of infected animals in the contiguous cull policy. The purpose of the policy is to get to the animals as quickly as possible so that the number of infected animals is relatively low. We know that if we do not get there quickly, the number of animals infected will rise


remorselessly and will then spread the disease. I know that it is hard, because individual farmers—although they understand the general reason for the policy—always argue that their particular animals, especially the high-value animals, should be given a chance. That is a perfectly understandable and human response. However, it is my painful duty to have to assert the broader public interest; it is in the interest of the rural community, the livestock industry and individual farmers that we cull the disease out and return to normality as quickly as we possibly can.
I note the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about pedigree animals. However, I have to beware of creating an alternative market for livestock through the welfare schemes. I will consider his representations—they are fair. As I said in my statement, I want to look at the other two sectors—lightweight sheep and sows—where the market is compromised, at least in part, by the export ban. The circumstances are specific and I want to discuss them further with the leadership of the farmers' unions and others with a particular interest. However, there is no easy solution. The worst thing I could do, through trying to be helpful, would be to create a false market that would, in turn, merely suck in imports and, frankly, do medium and long-term damage to the livestock industry.
I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has been a doughty campaigner on behalf of people with over-30-months animals. I am keeping the issue under review. It is not fair to say that a conclusion has been reached, but I know that he understands the difficulties as well as the obvious merits of the case that he presents.

Mr. Paul Marsden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I thank him for his tireless hard work during the past few weeks. Does he agree that there is a need for better contingency planning and for an increase in contingency funding for his Department? Specifically, will the independent review, which is referred to on page 25 of the MAFF departmental plan, where there is an overview of the business planning process, incorporate the lessons that should be learned from the foot and mouth outbreak? The question is not if, but when, we shall be faced with a third outbreak, but of a different disease—whether it be BSE, foot and mouth or swine fever.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. The Department will need to reflect on its contingency planning arrangements, not just within the Department but across Government, in the light of this unusual, indeed unique, disease outbreak—at least the pattern that it has taken is unique. There are other things that Government can do to prevent such an occurrence happening again, and I have discussed them in my statement: the re-examination of our rules on personal food imports, on commercial food imports, on pigswill, and on the issue of the standover of animals that have been moved for commercial purposes. All this is being looked at very hard at the moment, and I hope to have something to say to the House on some of it shortly.

Sir David Madel: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I asked him, in a written question on 9 April, whether he would release vaccine to zoos that may need it to vaccinate endangered species that are susceptible to foot and mouth disease.

He also knows that Whipsnade zoo is in my constituency. Apart from the welfare of the animals there, it is an extremely important part of the local economy. Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether vaccine can be released to Whipsnade zoo, so that it may have the option to vaccinate if it considers it necessary?

Mr. Brown: There is a vaccine strategy for zoos; I am sorry if I have not let the hon. Gentleman have a copy of it. I will ensure that he has a copy; in fact, I will send him two, so that he can give one to his zoo. The circumstances in which vaccination of animals could be permitted by Government are clearly set out, and there has been discussion with organisations representing those who operate zoological premises.

Mr. Doug Henderson: One thing that has characterised the last two or three months has been the movement in scientific opinion, which has confused many of my constituents and, I believe, other people in the country. Members in the House and in the country recognise, against the background of that moving scientific opinion, the determined and measured way in which these issues have been addressed by my right hon. Friend, but may I raise with him the issue of information to Members of Parliament?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that decisions taken be communicated accurately? Does he have a fast-track system for dealing with questions? Most of the questions that Members are currently asking are real questions, which have been raised by constituents who have real problems, and we need real answers. Does my right hon. Friend have a fast-track system for dealing with those; if he does, could he have a faster-track system for dealing with them?

Mr. Brown: There is a fast-track system for Members of Parliament; there is an established helpline for Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend asks whether we could have an even faster track, presumably for Members for Newcastle, and of course I am very sympathetic to that—so if he has a word with me afterwards, I will sort out his problem, whatever it is.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the Minister clarify the advice given as to the effects of pyres on grazing land? As he is aware, this week restrictions were lifted from my constituency; but farmers are concerned about the advice which, as far as we understand it, sought to minimise the risks. There was a suggestion that any particulates and other noxious substances would quickly dissipate in a matter of months, but stock is now being moved in my constituency and farmers really want to know whether they should be putting their stock out to grass. What advice will be available, given that one of the first pyres was lit in my constituency at a time when there was quite a lot of wind and the smoke spread throughout my constituency and changed direction? What advice will be given to those on farms close to the pyre and close to the fallout of the pyre? Should stock be put out to graze, and if so, when?

Mr. Brown: The prospect of the foot and mouth disease virus being spread by the fires is very remote indeed, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there


is a need for human health advice. The chief medical officer has just revised and updated his advice, and that is in the public domain. There is a need for advice from the Environment Agency, dealing with any environmental contamination, and above all there is a need for advice to farmers on restocking protocols. If the hon. Gentleman cares to contact my office after this exchange, I will ensure that he is given clear-cut advice to pass on to his constituents.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: In a similar vein, I should like to ask what environmental study of the pyres and landfill sites will take place to ensure that the people who live in the surrounding areas feel safe. The long-term monitoring of landfill sites, as well as pyre sites, is very important. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take on board the importance of the Intervention Board and the fact that the farming community still has difficulties—everything seems to be going ahead, but when it comes to the final signature on the letter, things do not happen as speedily as the farmers expect. What encouragement, help and assistance can be given to the Intervention Board to ease the pain that farmers are suffering at the moment?
Finally, I believe that the Chamber was at its best when both sides worked together to try to eradicate the diseases, instead of which we are degenerating into scoring cheap political points, which does no parliamentarian any good whatever. I hope that the true credit will go to those involved in fighting the disease—those in MAFF and the armed forces, and obviously those working for the NFU who are not getting the thanks that they deserve.

Mr. Brown: The public service has received help and support from NFU officials, who have worked alongside those at our regional centres, liaising with the farming community and performing an invaluable role in this difficult situation. The Intervention Board has been given extra resources to deal with the schemes that it is administering on the Government's behalf throughout Great Britain, but the right way to deal with the animals constrained by the movement restrictions is to bear down on the disease and to find a market-oriented approach, rather than looking to emergency state schemes. Environmental monitoring will continue, and we shall bear in mind the long-term effects of the disposal routes, not just the short-term ones.

Mr. John Burnett: The Minister has said that the backlog in Devon is now 85,000 animals—a considerable reduction and a considerable improvement. Today, and every day, many thousands of carcases are being moved to rendering plants and, probably, to landfill sites. Fortunately, there has been a significant diminution in Devon of confirmed cases in the past week. The Minister has announced a change in the contiguous cull policy. Taking all those factors together, will there be an end to the pyres and to the necessity for the huge burial grounds?

Mr. Brown: I know that it is painful, but the policy of culling out the disease must continue until we have removed the disease. There is no medicine that I can give to the animals, nor other intervention that I can take, that will get rid of the disease. Unless we stop the disease,

it will spread remorselessly, so we cannot relax our guard. As I said in my opening statement, I acknowledge that we have had a problem with disposal routes in Devon.
As the hon. Gentleman knows—he has raised the issue with me—there is no universally accepted disposal route. I understand what he says about the resistance to the pyres. They disfigure the landscape and people worry about the consequences, so I assure him that we will try to find disposal routes that are acceptable to local people, but I cannot confidently say that I am certain that we will be able to do so in all circumstances, because arguments can be made against, as well as for, each disposal route. I am afraid that that is the best I can do for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Paul Flynn: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being the calm, rational centre of the storm that has been swirling around him—unlike the cynical opportunism that we have seen from the Tory party?
Has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of the excessive movements of cattle, which he has mentioned? The House has been told of a farmer who was shocked to discover that a flock of sheep that he had bought had been on 11 different holdings in the past two months. In some parts of the country, it is claimed that 10 per cent. of sheep disappear. Some of them die, but we believe that some are counted several times to increase subsidies.
Can we ensure that we identify the reason for the spread of the disease, which has been far greater than in the past in this or any other country? The main reason has been the illegal movements of sheep and other animals around the country to increase subsidies.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to this extent: we have all been surprised at the number of sheep movements that result from the patterns of trade. There is a range of reasons for that, but they have implications for disease control. That is why I am consulting about a standstill period before sheep that have been traded can be moved again.
The implications for the current support regimes of the European Union—particularly the headage-based ones—have not been lost on anyone. I am clear in my own mind that, in future, we shall move away from headage-based schemes—for hill farmers specifically and, more generally, under the sheep premium regime—when the Commission puts its reform proposals forward. We shall move much more closely towards schemes that support farmers' incomes through a series of agreed criteria and away from supporting just the volume of livestock. That is the future of public support for the industry, and the Government need to discuss it carefully with those interested in the industry.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister accept that he would better create unity in the House and confidence in his policies if he allowed my hon. Friend the shadow Minister access, on behalf of the Conservative party to vets, officials and others? The Minister's attitude on that has frankly been reprehensible.
Does the Minister also accept that the policy that he has presented is hardly a joined-up one? The changes that he has announced today, the vacillation on vaccination


and the Phoenix factor suggest that we have had the needless slaughter of many animals over the past six weeks.

Mr. Brown: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on both points. I cannot deny the Opposition spokesman access to vets and I am not seeking to do so. My responsibility is for the work of the Ministry and of public officials. I want them to focus their full-time attention on eradicating the disease. As I have said very carefully, a special rule has not been devised for the Opposition spokesman; we are applying it equally and consistently to Members on both sides of the House.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the pattern of the disease has changed as it has spread, as we have borne down on it and as the number of cases has declined. Throughout, I have followed the scientific and veterinary advice available to Government and—to be candid about it—I have done more than that. I have put the advice into the public domain and, more than that, I have done what in my understanding no other Minister has done before. I have arranged presentations for hon. Members—I understand that the hon. Gentleman in attended one of them—to explain the epidemiology and to explain the case for vaccination. We have allowed the issues to be set out, so that we all could consider them. As I have said on a number of occasions—I repeat it now—whenever I make a decision based on scientific advice, I am willing to share that advice and to explain very carefully why I have arrived at the decision that I have. That is precisely what I have done today.

Mr. Tom Levitt: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, not least because it will take the pressure off the livestock disposal welfare scheme.
However, I wish to raise a livestock welfare issue of which my right hon. Friend's officials are aware. It does not seem able to be solved. My constituent, Mr. James Rotherham, runs a trout farm and, because anglers cannot get to the riverside, there is no demand for his trout to be put into rivers and lakes. Even if there were such demand, he would not be able to reach the rivers and lakes because of the travel restrictions. That means that thousands of trout on his farm are getting bigger and bigger in a very confined space. They are not suitable a for selling to the retail trade and the fact that he cannot get rid of them means that a welfare issue has arisen because of the travel restrictions on the land around the area where he stocks the fish. Will my right hon. Friend consider this issue as a matter of urgency because the problem is getting desperate?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is tight to explain the dangers of creating a false market. Although I shall give detailed consideration to the special circumstances that he sets out to see what can be done, I cannot promise to resolve them.

Mr. David Curry: The changes in the welfare scheme are sensible, but they leave farmers with cattle that have gone beyond the 30 months seriously adrift. The Minister must urgently address that problem. Is he aware that when the Government's chief scientific adviser met the Select Committee on Agriculture yesterday, he made no reference to a possible change of policy on contiguous culling? Indeed, he emphasised that

the risk of infection from a farm with foot and mouth disease to a surrounding farm was 17 per cent. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance that the change in policy follows science not sentiment, and that pictures in the newspapers of cuddly animals—however heart-rending—have not influenced that decision?

Mr. Brown: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Veterinary consideration of how to handle the difficult issue of cattle in the contiguous cull was considered by the chief vet at his conference last Friday. He has received many representations specifically on that topic from the vets who have to do the difficult and distressing job of carrying out the policy in the regions. I know that the right hon. Gentleman understands that, in addition to policy issues, there is a range of practical difficulties to consider. However, the policy was under review well before any individual incident was reported in the papers. We would be wrong as policy makers to extrapolate public policy from individual cases that always involve very young animals such as Lucky the lamb and Phoenix the calf. I understand that they may serve as symbols, but there are special circumstances in both cases.
On the right hon. Gentleman's other concern, I understand that to be the case. However, we must not relax the policy because that will allow the disease to spread remorselessly. I take comfort from the fact that we are getting to it quickly enough for the number of animals that are showing signs of the disease to be relatively small. The crucial consideration is that things will not stay that way if we do not act firmly now.

Mr. Harry Barnes: This is a welcome statement in difficult circumstances. In Chinese mythology, Phoenix ushers in a new age, and these provisions might at least mean that we are at a new stage. How will the change in policy affect the number of slaughtered animals that are being put into landfill sites? As livestock is now going into the food chain, will we be able to lessen the amount of carcases that go into landfill sites and therefore reduce the 111 sites that are in England at the moment?

Mr. Brown: As the number of infected premises steadily declines, the number of dangerous contacts and contiguous culls are also remorselessly declining, which means that fewer animals will have to be disposed of by the differing routes. We are considering the most appropriate route for each set of circumstances, but we are going to have to use them all for the foreseeable future. There is no perfect solution. Arguments can be made against each route, but there are even more powerful arguments against doing nothing.

Mr. Roger Gale: I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that when a veterinary surgeon discovers symptoms that he or she believes to be indicative of foot and mouth disease, the procedure is that the Ministry is notified and the case is either confirmed or, on the basis of the evidence, which may be insufficient, rejected. If it is rejected, I understand that the Ministry might, quite properly, authorise a precautionary cull. If that takes place, is it correct that a post-mortem examination and blood tests are carried out in every case


and that where foot and mouth is subsequently confirmed, those cases are added into the outbreak figures? If that is so, at what stage are they included?

Mr. Brown: I promise to let the hon. Gentleman have a detailed written answer to that because I want to be certain that my response is correct. The principle that he enunciates is right. Veterinarians are allowed to exercise clinical judgment on the site and do not have to check in with the veterinary headquarters in Page street if the situation is clear. However, it is right to remind the House that for every three cases that are reported to us as suspected foot and mouth, two turn out to be false alarms.

Charlotte Atkins: I very much welcome the decision to allow farmers outside the 3 km protection zone to get their animals into the food chain. That will certainly help many of my farmers and butchers that source locally. Given the fact that the impact of foot and mouth goes far wider than the farming and agricultural communities, why is the compensation that is being allocated through Advantage West Midlands based on the percentage of the population involved in agriculture? That excludes Staffordshire, which is one of the worst affected areas outside the main hot spots.

Mr. Brown: I will have to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to respond to my hon. Friend's second concern. The formula is a matter for him. We decided to use regional development agencies as deliverers of support because of the idea that local people would best know local circumstances and be able to respond more easily to local demands. I welcome what my hon. Friend says about getting the supply chain moving. That is crucial for the medium and long-term future of the British livestock industry.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the Minister aware that tests on David and Caroline Gilder's animals at Bozard farm, Woolstone, near Tewkesbury, have proved negative and hundreds of animals have been unnecessarily slaughtered? Hundreds more on surrounding farms have also been unnecessarily slaughtered, and I shall table written questions on a similar situation on a farm near Whitby in Yorkshire. In cases of genuine misdiagnosis, it is reasonable that the Government pay compensation not only for the animals slaughtered, but for all consequential losses. Will he seriously consider that?

Mr. Brown: I cannot announce an alteration to the compensation arrangements. However, I will consider the individual case of the hon. Gentleman's constituents if he refers it to me. I am not certain of all the circumstances involved and it would be unwise to go further, other than to make the general point that it is incredibly hard for the farming community—in particular, individual farmers—to have their animals taken, especially under the contiguous cull policy. Of the animals that seem healthy, some might be healthy, some might be incubating the disease and many will almost certainly be dangerous contacts. The policy is for the general good, but the individual farmer always hopes that it will not be applied to him and wants us to wait and see. The hard truth is that

we cannot wait and see. We must act for the general good, not for the specific good. The animals might not have the disease, but if we do nothing they will get it.

Mr. Huw Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and inform him, with some relief, that we have not had an additional outbreak in Monmouthshire for more than two weeks. However, the 17 cases in my constituency have had a devastating effect. Does he agree that among the lessons to be learned are those relating to the long-term transportation of livestock, the practices of some livestock dealers and the need for sub-regional abattoirs? When he meets his colleagues in the European Council, will he assure them that some farmers will not want to get back into farming? They need an early retirement package and progress must be made on that.

Mr. Brown: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. On the unresolved issues—in particular, whether more can be done to help those who have decided to retire from the industry—I am giving further thought to what can be done in these special circumstances.

Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister will be aware that although we have not had an outbreak in my constituency, we have been badly affected by the restrictions on animal movements. He announced that from Monday 23 April, some restricted livestock has been allowed to enter the food chain. Is he aware that as of Thursday last week, no information had been provided to trading standards, so no movements can be made? Can he assure that House that that hurdle has been passed and the system is working smoothly?
The Minister also announced changes to the welfare disposal system. Is he aware of the severe consternation that the system is causing to pig producers in the Vale of York, especially since he gave a commitment that the original payments would run for eight weeks from 23 March? The cut in payments to £37, or probably less, for clean animals will cause grief to those producers.

Mr. Brown: I understand the second point that the hon. Lady makes, which is of course fair. However, I have to weigh up the danger of continuing with rates that I am advised risk creating an artificial market that is more attractive than the actual operation of the supply chain. If we did that, we would remorselessly suck imports into the food chain and perhaps permanently displace British products, which would not be in the interests of the livestock industry. In addition, the state, rather than the consumer, would be the purchaser of a great deal of livestock—much more livestock than we should purchase. That was a hard decision, but I believe it to be right. I gave an assurance that the scheme would continue to run; I gave no assurance about adjustments of the rates. Although the situation is tough, we would do far more harm than good by trying to keep the rates artificially high.
I understand the other point that the hon. Lady made, and perhaps she will allow me to write to her about it.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that contrary to what the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) keeps saying, if the current downward trend continues, this outbreak will have been


contained far more successfully than that of 1967, which is remarkable given the present outbreak's much wider geographical spread?
How much truth is there in the reports that my local rendering plant in Exeter has been working at only 60 per cent, of capacity? Given the terrible problems that we have had with carcase disposal, surely that is totally unacceptable.

Mr. Brown: I do not think that the situation is exactly as my hon. Friend describes it, although I am aware of the reports. I have asked that the situation be examined, and if the plant is able to handle more work, which of course we have, we will send it to them. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the comparison of the current outbreak with that of 1967.
There will be a time to reflect when we have exterminated foot and mouth disease in this country. People will want to consider the way in which the two outbreaks were handled, but the 1967 outbreak had many different features and there was a point at which there were 90 new infected premises a day. We have not even got beyond half that rate.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister may know that half of my constituency was declared an infected area because there was a suspected case over the border in Powys. That was six weeks ago. The case proved to be negative, but the infected area status still applies to half of my constituency. I understand that there will be movement on that within 24 hours. Will the Minister assure me that there will be better liaison between his officials and those of the devolved Administration in Cardiff? Will he assure me also that Intervention Board officials will have a better working relationship with officials of the devolved Administration, because these matters are very important?

Mr. Brown: The Intervention Board is of course shared between myself, acting as the Minister for England rather more than for the UK, and the Ministers in Wales and in Scotland, so it serves Wales just as it serves England and Scotland. The working relationships at ministerial and official levels between my Department and the devolved authorities have been very good, or at least that is my perception. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to consider a specific issue of communication or another matter, I will willingly do so, but I have to say that the implementation of the policy is wholly devolved and is a matter for my colleague the Secretary for Rural Affairs in the Welsh Assembly, not for me.

Points of Order

Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that at business questions before the Easter recess, I drew to the attention of the House the fact that Members were using written questions to seek information about other Members' constituencies when one could not clearly identify a reason for the question to be asked. I named the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who had engaged in that practice. Since then, it has been drawn to my attention that the hon. Gentleman—I gave him notice that I intended to name him—has tabled no fewer than nine questions to nine Departments about my constituency. So probing and wide-reaching are those questions that one Department has had to draw up an answer of four pages.
The cost to the public of answering such questions is enormous. Surely they are an abuse of parliamentary privilege by Members. As there is an election coming and these questions are clearly asked purely for party political purposes and the production of election literature, I wonder whether this is a matter in which you could intervene, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady's concerns. There is nothing in the rules of the House to prevent Members submitting questions that relate to another Member's constituency. However, if Members choose to ask such questions, I expect them as a matter of courtesy to give notice in advance to the colleague whose constituency is the subject of the question. If a question of that nature has been submitted without notification, I deprecate that. More generally, I hope that Members who are contemplating such action will consider carefully whether it sits well with the purpose and spirit of parliamentary questions and answers.

Mr. Tim Boswell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I crave your indulgence briefly to make two separate points of order. The first is simply a matter of the record. Today, in relation to oral Question 9 to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, which was about specialist schools, I, in a perhaps somewhat feline fashion, inserted the phrase "selective schools". The Secretary of State chose to suggest to the House that it was a Freudian slip. I gather that he now accepts that I meant what I said.
The second point of order is much more serious because it involves people's livelihoods. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this morning there was news of approximately 1,000 redundancies at the British works of Timken, manufacturers of bearings and related products, in Northampton. That will have a considerable effect because almost all those jobs will be lost by people in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) and in my constituency, where there is also a small Timken facility. That is a major blow to the economy of our area and severs a long-standing relationship with a well-respected United States-sourced firm. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any representations from Ministers to make a statement on the


matter? If not, will those who are now on the Treasury Bench take note of what has been said and communicate it to their colleagues, because the matter is of concern in our area?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to hear of men and women losing their jobs, but it is not a matter for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to pay tribute, through you, to the parliamentary clerk in the Ministry of Agriculture, who has assisted Ministers in producing, throughout a very busy time, many outstanding answers to written questions that I have tabled. However, a number remain unanswered, and I would like to reinforce, through you, the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for an opportunity for all questions to be answered in advance of any Dissolution or recess.

Mr. Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture is still in his place. My experience is exactly the same: I had many priority written questions on matters of great importance to my constituents, relating to foot and mouth disease, down for answer before the recess. A week after the recess, I have still received only holding answers to all those questions. Is there anything that I can do to encourage the Ministry to give my constituents the information that they so desperately need?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the Minister has taken note of the concerns of both hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the entire crisis we have not had

a full day's debate in Government time on foot and mouth. We have had several statements but, Mr. Speaker, you will have noticed that today a considerable number of Conservative Members wished to ask a question when the statement came to an end. May I ask you to use your usual understanding so that, should we have another statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, you will give preference to those unable to ask a question today?

Mr. Speaker: I heard some mutterings and it is understandable that those who were not called are disappointed. However, on several occasions, I have asked the Minister to come to the House to make a statement and, indeed, have kept him at the Dispatch Box for over an hour and a half. Today he was here for well over an hour, and I must give some consideration to other business before the House. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point, I assure him that notes are taken and those who were not called today and were disappointed will not he disappointed next time.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take the matter a step further? You will recall that before the recess, I pointed out that the Prime Minister himself had indicated that he was taking personal charge of the foot and mouth crisis because it went across all Departments. Indeed, from the answers given by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon it is apparent that a number of issues are the responsibility of other Departments. Is there any way, Mr. Speaker, that you could make representations to ensure that the Prime Minister himself came to the House, not for a debate which, frankly, would be of lesser use, but simply to answer the questions that some of us want to ask about interdepartmental responsibilities?

Mr. Speaker: Those matters are not for me, as the hon. Gentleman knows. However, I am sure that someone will take note of what he has said.

Orders of the Day — Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

PROVISION OF MOBILITY AND INDEPENDENCE EDUCATION

'In the 1996 Act insert the following section—

"324A Provision of mobility and independence education

(1) An assessment of the educational needs of a child with visual impairment or multi-sensory impairment under section 323 or section 331 must include an assessment of their mobility and independence needs.
(2) Where a local education authority makes a statement of special educational needs for a child with visual impairment or multi-sensory impairment under section 324 or section 331, any needs for mobility and independence education shall be specified as special educational provision in the child's statement.".'.—[Mr. Win Griffiths.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is meant as a probing amendment, which the Royal National Institute for the Blind and Sense were keen to have debated on Report. They want to highlight the need for mobility and independence education for visually impaired and multi-sensory impaired children to be treated as, I underline, a special educational provision, which must be provided by local education authorities if specified in a statement, rather than as a form of non-educational provision that LEAs may arrange. The RNIB and Sense want the revised code of practice on special educational needs to set out clearly that important principle.
Visually impaired children and children with multi-sensory impairment experience huge problems getting around safely and confidently and, more generally, in understanding and negotiating their environment. Aspects of self-care, such as grooming, dressing and cooking, may present huge challenges. Addressing those needs is an essential part of the children's education and must start from the earliest possible age to maximise future independence. The new clause therefore refers to section 331 of the Education Act 1996, which deals with the assessment of the under-twos. Even at that young age, children need to be encouraged and motivated to explore their immediate environment safely and to move around it confidently.
Mobility and independence education is fundamental to visually impaired and multi-sensory impaired children's access to education. Put simply, if children cannot find their way around their classroom or school safely and confidently, and if they are not given the practical skills that they need to move around safely in the playground and participate fully in physical education and drama classes, they cannot be said to be included. Furthermore, if children are denied the opportunity to learn self-care skills such as dressing and grooming, they cannot be said to be receiving an education appropriate to their needs.

Training for that involves a specialist mobility teacher acting as programme planner, staff trainer and adviser—the child's teachers and support workers must be closely involved—as well as direct training.
The latest RNIB research, detailed in "Shaping the Future", which was published in 2000, shows that nearly two in three pupils attending specialist schools for blind and partially sighted pupils have received mobility education, but that fewer than one in three visually impaired pupils in mainstream schools have received mobility and independence education. One in 20 16 to 25-year-olds of average learning ability have no mobility education, but would have liked to have had it. Moreover, when such education is provided, there is evidence that it is treated as a marginal element of the curriculum, which is not in the spirit of the commitment of the Department for Education and Employment to fully inclusive education. Only three out of 117 pupils who had had mobility education had it built into their timetables.
As a result, one in three mainstream secondary pupils said that they felt left out of some classroom activities; more than one in four said that there were school clubs and activities in which they would have liked to participate, but had not done so, and of that proportion one in six said that that was due to their sight difficulty. Moreover, lack of mobility education was found to be one reason why blind and partially sighted children and young people are less likely than their sighted peers to travel independently and confidently. Lack of self-confidence in travelling was an issue for six in 10 primary school pupils, more than one in three secondary school pupils and four in 10 16 to 25-year-olds.
As well as training starting at an early age, it is vital that children receive it consistently and for as long as they need it to prepare for adult independence. Tackling those problems is central to the Government's goal of ensuring that inclusion in mainstream education is a more realistic and effective option for children with sensory impairment. As things stand, mainstream placements are clearly not delivering mobility and independence education consistently or effectively to sensorily impaired children.

Mr. Tom Levitt: I am attracted to my hon. Friend's proposal, but it would be nice to think that it was not necessary. Does he agree that independence education of sensorily impaired children is necessary, but that there must also be greater awareness among their peers about how to relate to them? It should be possible to extend the proposal to include the peers and classmates of children with sensory impairments.

Mr. Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, specialist teachers, to whom I referred earlier, and who maintain close contact with teachers and others in the classroom, should try to ensure that the whole class and school appreciate the tremendous problems of sensorily impaired children. I experienced those problems a week or so ago in Westminster Hall, when I had a brief go with a blindfold and a guide dog.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I hope that it was not mine.

Mr. Griffiths: I assure my right hon. Friend that it was not.


That certainly brought home to me how disabling lack of sight and partial sight can be. I believe in the participation of the whole class and school.

Mr. Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman's argument is persuasive and I believe that his new clause is reasonable. Has he or the organisations to which he spoke made any financial assessment of the impact on the DFEE of introducing such a provision?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not have such information, although I understand that it is available. I do not believe that the provision would be a great financial burden. I shall refer later, without specifying figures, to matters in Wales which show that the commitment would not account for a huge part of the education budget. The costs involved would be offset by the huge benefits that would be gained for partially sighted and sensorily impaired children.
Part of the problem is that mobility and independence needs are frequently not specified as special educational needs in part 2 of the statement, and consequently are not identified as educational provision that the LEA considers it necessary to make under part 3 of the statement. Instead, special educational needs may be included in part 5 of the statement, which deals with non-educational needs, and in part 6, as the non-educational provision agreed between the LEA and health and social services.
LEAs have a duty to arrange the special educational provision specified in part 3 of a statement, and parents have a right of appeal to the tribunal if they disagree with the description of needs, the provision or any plans to stop making the provision by ceasing to maintain the statement. However, none of that applies if mobility and independence training are included in parts 5 and 6 as non-educational provision. LEAs simply have the power to arrange provision. The RNIB considers that a significant factor in explaining why so many children are not gaining access to the training that they require.
Recognising mobility and independence training as educational needs within the statutory assessment and statementing process would provide LEAs with the necessary incentive to ensure that what is specified in the statement is carried out. If mobility and independence training becomes part of the specified provision, it will be possible for children who are visually impaired or have multi-sensory impairments to receive, under the statement, properly specified, the help that they need through mobility and independence education.
As I said, such training is fundamental to allow the children to play a full and proper part in their school. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will respond positively to the issues that I have raised, and that when the special educational needs code of practice is published it will take account of those needs.
I should be interested to know what other plans for action the Department has to meet the needs of children with visual and multi-sensory impairments so that they can participate fully in the schools that they attend, particularly when those are mainstream schools, in accordance with the Government's aim to make inclusion a reality for those children and their families.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Not for the first time, as we know from having heard his contributions in the

Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has performed a service by raising issues sensitively and with a good deal of perception. I agreed with a good deal of what he said, and it is right that Ministers should respond to it—although in view of the load of business that we have this afternoon, we will all have to keep our remarks as short as possible.
I share many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgend and have had many of the same experiences. I, too, had a trial run with a guide dog, and found that interesting. At the edge of my constituency is the centre for dogs for the disabled. Those people do not necessarily have sensory impairment, although they may have various impairments. I have been able, through the work of the centre, to see the great skill required to train the dogs, and then the users of the dogs, to make the best of that partnership.
2.45 pm
I shall summarise the points set out by the hon. Gentleman. The first, to which we refer in other new clauses, is the importance of the setting in which any mainstream education is to be delivered, and the importance of induction and training for all the participants—that is, the pupil, the teachers and, as was mentioned in an intervention, the other pupils, so that the best is made of the situation and nothing creates a difficulty.
Secondly, a continuing motif of our debates has been our concern about the comparatively low overall attainments of children with special educational needs, in terms of their final outcomes. We need not dissect that in detail today, and I certainly do not want to give the House the signal that we expect children with one or other special educational need necessarily to do badly in their school, particularly if they have a sensory impairment. Indeed—this is the last time that I shall mention it—the Secretary of State gives the most eloquent possible lie to that.
It is essential that every child should be able to perform to the best of his or her ability, and that any difficulties are effectively overcome. That is the entirely proper motive for the new clause. There must be concern, especially in what may be termed straightforward cases of sensory impairment—blindness or deafness—that those give rise to underperformance, which should not have happened.
The third point, which the hon. Member for Bridgend was right to raise, is the importance of a holistic approach. It is not simply a matter of putting children into the classroom, telling them that they are now included and part of the mainstream, and expecting them, the school, the other pupils or anyone else simply to get on with it. All the various aspects must be brought together. As the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, the new clause brings together the special provision of an educational nature that is specified in the statement, and the other things that an LEA may do to support the child.
There is a detectable functional distinction between those two categories, which hinges on what is or is not educational. An analogous case is the fraught issue of what is nursing care and what is support or personal care in residential care or nursing homes. We will get into difficulties if we seek to draw absolute distinctions between categories, especially where, by implication,


the funding streams are different. We do not have an immediate answer to those problems, and we need to focus rather more on finding our way through them.
If Ministers tell the House that that is all secured under present arrangements, we will be reassured, but we will retain a degree of scepticism, as does the RNIB, about whether that is the case in practice. We should explore the issues in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman moved the new clause, as a probing measure, and listen carefully to the ministerial response. The problem deserves attention and will not go away.

Mr. Andrew George: The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) emphasised the fact that the new clause raises issues that we may have overlooked in Committee. The intervention by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) highlighted the importance of ensuring that the needs of pupils with a severe sensory loss are taken into account in the wider school environment and among other pupils. That is essential.
In the spirit of the new clause, which is meant as a probing amendment, the key point is for the Under-Secretary to reassure those who believe that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has raised an important matter that our concerns are encompassed in the Bill or in some other way. It would be helpful if such clarification were put on the record. Will she also comment on the difficulty and additional ties that the new clause would create for local education authorities, the Department for Education and Employment and local schools?

Mr. Win Griffiths: I omitted to mention what the RNIB said about Wales, which is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It believes that two or three centres could be established in Wales to provide a service to all local authorities. Obviously, not every local authority would have the expertise that is necessary to make the provision. The scale of the proposal in terms of Welsh local authorities would be extremely small.

Mr. George: I am grateful for that helpful clarification of the extra dimension in Wales.
The Liberal Democrats support the spirit and purpose of the new clause and we look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary's response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Like other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has given us to discuss a crucial issue. The new clause deals with a matter that is of concern to many families with children who have a visual or multi-sensory impairment: the training that such children receive to enhance their mobility and independence.
All hon. Members accept that it is vital for children with a visual or multi-sensory impairment to learn how to get around independently and safely in the school or institution in which they are undertaking their learning. Without those basic skills, visually impaired children will not enjoy properly inclusive education and will be excluded from society as adults. If visually impaired

children are not taught the basic life skills that make for independence, they will be excluded from life at school and from society as adults.

Mr. Boswell: The Under-Secretary has made an excellent start to her speech, but does she agree that even if skills training is not given in school, it will still be required somewhere and will have to be given outside that setting? It might as well be done in the most appropriate place.

Ms Hodge: That training needs to be provided in the most appropriate place and by the most appropriate people. Perhaps that will become clearer as I develop my remarks. As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, the purpose of the Bill is to equalise opportunities, so facilities for visually and sensorily impaired children are integral to it.
As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend acknowledged, a range of agencies are involved in providing support for the children to whom the Bill relates. I pay tribute to the active and helpful role of Sense and the RNIB, both of which I meet frequently, and of others in promoting mobility and independence. Those organisations have worked effectively with local education authorities throughout the country to provide training where it is needed.
LEAs do and must work in partnership with health authorities, social services departments and voluntary organisations to ensure that children get appropriate support and training. As the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) acknowledged, not all the services will be funded through LEAs. The way in which a service is funded and the agency that is selected to provide it will depend on the individual circumstances and needs of the child in question.
I hope to give some reassurances to all hon. Members who have participated in this short debate. LEAs are required to specify in a child's statement the special educational provision that is necessary to meet his or her special educational needs. They are also required to set out the non-educational needs of the child and the provision that is needed if he or she is properly to benefit from that provision. Indeed, the non-educational provision that is necessary to enable the child to benefit from his or her education provision can also be specified in the statement. That can encompass all needs, including those that relate to mobility and independence.
Our current code of practice and framework for special educational needs are somewhat different from what is suggested by the new clause, which would require LEAs by law specifically to assess mobility and independence as part of the statutory assessment of every child with visual or multi-sensory impairment. It would also require them to specify as educational provision in their statements the provision of mobility and independence training. I am not sure that such legislation is either necessary or appropriate.
As I hope that I have demonstrated, the current SEN framework allows for the holistic approach that we all acknowledge to be necessary for the children. It allows for the consultation of specialist teachers in appropriate individual circumstances when a child's special educational needs are assessed—a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend. When we


establish our policies, we will require a framework that encourages all the agencies that have a role to work together.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I accept everything that my hon. Friend says, but let me point out the problem that is apparent from research and surveys carried out by the RNIB. Although children get the help and support that they need in specialist schools, such support is not always available in mainstream schools because of the different standing of such provision within the statement. Will she assure us that the new code of practice will ensure equality of treatment? That would be very encouraging.

Ms Hodge: I acknowledge that the standard of current provision is not as high as we want it to he, and that it is not as integrated as we want it to be. I hope that my assurances about the steps that we are taking will show my hon. Friend that we are genuinely trying to achieve the aims to which he and the organisations in whose name he makes his representations aspire.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it is important for us to establish a framework that facilitates, encourages and demands multi-agency working, rather than one that allows some of the agencies to opt out of their responsibilities in respect of dealing with the children's needs. As the new clause deliberately specifies the obligations in terms of the LEA, it might enable social services and health departments to opt out of their legitimate responsibilities in that regard.

Mr. Boswell: Those are helpful remarks, but I am not sure whether the Under-Secretary can secure her intentions in the Bill. Does she at least agree that it is incumbent on all agencies, whether they are specifically educational or not, and whether they are national or local, to collaborate and exchange information so that the overall holistic solution can emerge? I understand her point about not shifting their responsibilities away, but one of those responsibilities must be to work with other agencies in order to achieve the right outcome.

3 pm

Ms Hodge: I accept that those responsibilities must be shared and that collaboration must occur. One of the challenges that we face in trying to provide and improve services is finding methods of enhancing collaboration, thus ensuring that the needs of the child are central, and replacing traditional attitudes and practices, which tended to leave people in funnels. We want to encourage work across the professions.
The current SEN framework allows a holistic approach to need. We must ensure that it is appropriate to the needs of every child, and acknowledge that they may differ. The new clause would constrain our response to shifting the burden on to one authority. That may be inappropriate for some children, who may require more input from social services or health departments on mobility, independence or other needs. The disability provisions will ensure that every school makes reasonable adjustments to its policies, practices and procedures, and to access to the curriculum and the building. That will ensure that all children, including those with visual impairments and sensory impairments, are fully included in the life of the school.

I acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend made about low incidence impairments. We want to take advantage of the experience and expertise of specialists, yet enable children to be taught in mainstream schools in their locality when possible. The new clause shows that there is much work to be done and I do not pretend that we have achieved our aim yet. As my hon. Friend said, we need to spread the best practice of specialist schools in mainstream schools.
The aim of many of the SEN and social inclusion policies of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with responsibility for school standards is to fund, through SEN regional partnerships and the SEN small programmes fund, mechanisms that will enhance the capacity for specialist schools to pass on their knowledge, experience and expertise to the mainstream sector. I am delighted that we have been able to increase so substantially the money that we are putting into the standards fund, which will support the training of teachers in mainstream schools and others to deal with impairments, especially low incidence impairments.
We need to do much more on early identification and intervention. We spent much time in Committee, as did another place, on that subject. If we can improve that, we will ensure that children can develop their full potential and live a more inclusive life. We are therefore investing a large sum of money in special educational needs in the early years, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on Second Reading. We have also announced the establishment of a multi-agency working group to develop guidance on identifying the special needs of children under two so that necessary provision can be made for them at the earliest opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend raised another issue, about which I share his anxiety. We need to try to ensure greater consistency in provision throughout the country, especially for low incidence impairment. We have therefore issued our consultation document on quality standards in education for children and young people with visual impairments. As hon. Members know, it is designed to secure the right sort of services to help pupils to be independent learners. We refer specifically to the need to ensure support for mobility training when needed. We await the final comments from the consultation exercise, and we shall then distribute a final version to local authorities. I hope that we can use the document to ensure greater consistency across the country.
Multi-agency working is the key to ensuring a holistic approach. Several Government initiatives will support that. From sure start to the Bill, our policies will provide a framework based on the needs of the child rather than the interests of the professionals.
Clearly, we need to continue to seek improvements in our response to the specific needs of children with visual impairments and other sensory impairments. Together with the RNIB, Guide Dogs for the Blind and Opsis, we are funding a one-year research project, which considers the mobility and independence needs of children and young people from two to 16 and the training needs of those who work with them. That research will help inform future policy decisions, and we shall keep the issue under review.


I hope that I have been able to persuade my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause, and that we can proceed with introducing the much-needed Bill.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for her response to the new clause, which, as I said earlier, is a probing motion. I did not intend all responsibility to fall on the local education authority, but I wanted the special provision that we are considering to be equal to other special education provision. The disability provisions, the aim of equal treatment and the research project, to which my hon. Friend referred, will help. I am therefore happy that the Department, in conjunction with the many agencies and voluntary bodies, is dealing with the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CHILD

'The Secretary of State shall, in exercising his powers under the 1996 Act with respect to the education of children with special educational needs, take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that provision by bodies in receipt of public funds for meeting those needs should treat the needs of the individual child as paramount so far as that is compatible with the provision of efficient education for other children:.—[Mrs. May.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out "efficient" and insert "effective".

Mrs. May: I am conscious that the principle that underpins new clause 2 is not unfamiliar to those who have followed the Bill through its various stages in another place and in the House. It deals with the emphasis that the Bill should place on the needs of the individual child in the context of special educational needs provision.
The matter was raised in another place, on Second Reading and in Committee, where the details of the measure were thoughtfully and thoroughly debated. I pay tribute to the members of the Committee, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who have worked hard to try to ensure that the measure works in the interests of children with special educational needs and disabled children.
New clause 2 would put the needs of individual children with special educational needs and those of individual disabled children at the heart of the measure. We have discussed the principle previously, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), will respond positively today. If members of the public were asked what should be paramount in determining provision for special needs children, their reply would undoubtedly be the needs of the child. That is common sense. They might also mention other aspects, which the Bill covers, such as parental choice about the provision for their children or ensuring that the child's

education was provided efficiently and did not damage that of other children. Those needs must be balanced when making a decision about one child.
Although I believe that most people would say that it was common sense for the child's needs to be the first consideration, the Government have thus far been unwilling to include that principle in the Bill.
New clause 2 proposes that a duty be given to the Secretary of State to ensure that, when consideration is given to the provision of education to a child with special educational needs, the needs of the child should be paramount in that consideration. Two arguments have been raised by the Government about why the needs of the child should not be incorporated in the Bill, and should not be the prime consideration. The first is that it is unnecessary because the needs of the child are already provided for in legislation in a variety of ways; the second is that it would be a mistake because experience has shown that if the needs of the child are put first, that can be used by the various bodies involved to argue, in a counter-productive way, that the child should not, for example, be in a mainstream school. That second argument is the one raised most often.
The Under-Secretary wrote a helpful letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry on 24 April, setting out various aspects of existing legislation that the Government say safeguard and protect children with special educational needs. The Minister wrote that under section 7 of the Education Act 1996 parents have a duty to ensure that their children receive full-time education that is suitable to their age and any special educational needs.
The hon. Lady also pointed out that section 9 of the Act sets out the need to ensure that parents have a choice, and that schedule 27 of the Act ensures that the individual needs of the child are taken into account in deciding whether to name a parent's choice of maintained school in a statement. Those provisions refer to the needs of the child, but they do not put the needs of the child at the heart of the decision as to the sort of education with which the child should be provided, be it in a maintained school or a special school. That is my concern.
The Government's reliance on those existing provisions is a very convoluted way of approaching a simple, common-sense issue that could easily be incorporated in the Bill so that everyone making decisions about where a child with special educational needs should be educated would know that the paramount consideration should be for the needs of the child. That is important because, sadly, today the needs of the child are being put to one side in relation not only to the ability of children to enter mainstream education, but, in a reverse sense, sometimes through attempts to ensure that children are not provided for in special schools. The legislation on which the Minister is relying represents a convoluted way of dealing with this issue. We have an opportunity to take a simple approach, and to state in the Bill that the needs of the child are what matter. Let us put that up front, accept it and say that that is where the focus should be in any decisions that are taken.
I mentioned earlier that the second argument against making the needs of the child paramount, and including that in the Bill, was that experience showed that if the child's needs were put first, various bodies involved could use that requirement counter-productively. Indeed, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Kingswood


(Mr. Berry) referred to local education authorities that had used the argument about the needs of the child to prevent certain children from going into mainstream education, saying that a place in a special school was more appropriate.
It is a bad principle to use examples of where putting the child's needs first has acted against the child's needs as a reason for not incorporating such a provision in the Bill. That is an argument for examining how local authorities are interpreting the needs of the child, and putting those principles into practice, rather than for leaving the needs of the child off the Bill. My fear is that the kind of situation to which the hon. Member for Kingswood referred could be exacerbated if there were no provision in the Bill to ensure that, when considering such decisions, the needs of the child must be centrally placed and paramount.
I am worried not only about circumstances in which, without this provision, a child could be prevented by a local authority from going into mainstream education. Given that the Bill emphasises two considerations—parental wishes and the provision of efficient education within the recipient school—a situation could arise in which parents were worried about the prospect of their child going into mainstream education and were naturally fearful of the child not being in a special school. The mainstream school in question may argue that there might be some difficulties involved in teaching the child, despite the fact that the needs of the child would clearly be best met by being in that school. If that third consideration of the individual needs of the child, that balancing item, were not in the Bill, it would be all too easy in those circumstances for that child to be prevented from having a place in the mainstream school simply because we had not accepted the importance of those needs.
3.15 pm
These arguments can act in another way, too. I am conscious of the problems faced by a number of special schools. They have considerable expertise in providing for the needs of individual children in a way that mainstream schools are often unable to meet. So far in this debate, considerable emphasis has understandably been placed on the needs of children with disabilities. That is a central and very welcome part of the Bill that we support. However, special educational needs do not simply relate to children with disabilities.
Many schools commenting on the issue of including children in mainstream education state that they have no difficulty with the principle, although there might be resource implications, for example, in accommodating a child who was a wheelchair user. However, those schools are concerned about children with emotional and behavioural difficulties who can cause real disruption and damage to the education of other children.
That is why it is so sad to see what is happening to schools such as Oldfield House school in Twickenham, which I visited yesterday. It is a special school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties which is under threat of closure by the local authority. The school has had very few children referred to it, and the local authority has been running down the number of statements and referrals that it has been making to it.

The head teacher made the point that the school had a group of teachers with expertise in dealing with children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, and if its children were placed in mainstream schools, there would be an impact on the rest of the children in the classes, and the teachers in the mainstream schools would find it very difficult to cope with them. Furthermore, the needs of the children with emotional and behavioural difficulties would not be met. They might be physically included in the class, but in many other ways they would be excluded from the educational provision of the school.
In considering where a child with special educational needs, of whatever sort, can best be educated, it is important that the wishes of parents and the efficient provision of education should be considered, and the Bill rightly makes provision for those considerations. However, it is also simple common sense and in the best interests of children to ensure that their needs should be placed at the heart of the Bill. Their needs drive the Bill, and their needs drive our intention to provide the best possible education for them. We should recognise that in the Bill, and new clause 2 aims to provide that recognition.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about the needs of the child being paramount. It is rather surprising that we have had to table this new clause. One would assume that, as the Government have said how important it is to introduce the Bill to help children with special educational needs and disabilities, such a provision would not be missing from it. The children about whom we are talking are the very children whom the Bill is supposedly designed to help.
I know that there is probably general support for the Bill's principles, but I have a little difficulty with it because of experiences that I have had in my constituency. I do not want to take up too much of the House's time in going over the ground that I covered on Second Reading and in Committee, but I have some concerns about what is happening in special educational needs at the moment.
I accept that many children with SEN can be included in mainstream schools. Many already are, including children in my constituency. In Gloucestershire, however, the Labour party and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats on the county council seem determined to challenge the need for so many special schools, and even to embark on a programme to close such schools. As I have said in the House before, a school in Stroud, Bownham Park—it is not actually in my constituency—is scheduled for closure. We are challenging the decision, because it is felt that if that school is closed a number of other schools in Gloucestershire will also be closed, which would reduce the amount of SEN provision in the county.
Although it is possible to provide special education in mainstream schools, it is important for a number of special schools to be available for children to attend if that is their wish and the wish of their parents. I have already accepted that many children can go to mainstream schools even if they have special needs, and that many do; but if children, or their parents, decide that education in special schools is really necessary, the facility should be provided.
What is surely of overriding importance—what must matter more than any fine theories that we may propound here, and more than any political dogma or political


correctness—is that each child should be assessed on the basis of what he or she needs, and that the child is offered education that will suit those individual requirements.
Many children at special schools are currently feeling rather challenged. They sense that their schools are under threat, and fear that their voices are not being listened to. There is a great movement towards inclusion, which is justified in many instances; but many children are frightened by the Bill. They are frightened by the prospect of their schools' being closed as a result of political correctness or party dogma, and they want people to listen to them.
Last month, I welcomed a delegation from Alderman Knight school, in my constituency, to the House of Commons. One girl who knew that she had special educational needs spoke to the meeting, very bravely. She came out with a phrase that I will never forget for as long as I am elected to this place: she said that no one was listening to her.
Surely politicians in all parties have a duty to listen to what is said by those whom we are supposed to be trying to help. I support the new clause because I fear that we are not listening to expressions of concern from individual pupils with special educational needs.

Mr. Edward Leigh: New clause 2, which I support, deals with the challenging tightrope that the Bill attempts to walk. On the one hand there is the commendable and correct principle of including children with special needs, in order to further their integration in society and help them to develop as fully as possible. No one argues with that. On the other, there is the reality: it may be in the best interests of both child and school for some SEN children to be educated in schools that focus specifically on their needs. I consider it essential for what the new clause describes as the "best interests of the child" to be enshrined in the Bill.
I spoke to a number of teachers in my constituency this week, in order to be briefed on their views and those of their schools about the new clause and the Bill in general. They expressed concern—this is their opinion, not mine—that the Bill might force children into mainstream schools when that would be manifestly unsuitable owing to their needs. A clause ensuring that the best interest of the child was always a priority would be invaluable.

Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman said that the phrase "best interests of the child" was in the new clause. I cannot find it there. There is a distinction to be drawn between the needs of a child and the best interests of that child.

Mr. Leigh: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I should have thought that a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to
ensure that provision by bodies in receipt of public funds for meeting those needs should treat the needs of the individual child as paramount
was using language denoting "the best interests of the child". The hon. Gentleman's point strikes me as being merely semantic, but he has his own view, and he is entitled to make his own speech in his own way.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: It might be helpful if the Liberal Democrats told us whether they would

support the new clause if it included the alternative wording which, as my hon. Friend says, is similar to what is there now.

Mr. Leigh: No doubt we shall discover the Liberal Democrats' view later, but I do not think that we should trade debating points. We are discussing a serious issue. Whether we refer to the best interests or the paramount interests of a child—I do not mind what we call it—we are talking about people with severe difficulties. Let us put them first.

Mr. Levitt: At every stage, Ministers and those of us who support the Bill in its entirety have made it clear that the Bill not only provides a framework for the successful integration of children with special needs in mainstream education, but strengthens parents' right to make informed choices about where their children are educated. Can the hon. Gentleman give us any evidence—apart from hearsay, originating from people who may not yet be familiar with the Bill—to demonstrate that the Bill will not achieve what it sets out to achieve?

Mr. Leigh: If it is indeed true that those who have framed the Bill are determined to give parents freedom of choice, I do not see why they should be concerned about the admirable wording of the new clause. We have not yet heard from the Minister, who, of course, may accept it. The new clause simply suggests that the Secretary of State should treat
the needs of the individual child as paramount".
I said that I wanted to relay the views of teachers in my constituency. I think that their views are worth hearing. A connected issue, which teachers constantly mention to me, is the provision of special schools. Teachers say that the initiative to encourage more children into mainstream schools—with which, in principle, everyone is quite happy—carries the danger that more and more special schools will be closed down. That point was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson).
Ofsted put the rate of closure of special schools at 30 per cent. last year. If that continues—this directly answers the question asked by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt)—parents will have little choice in regard to where they send their children. It is a mockery of the notion of choice to say that parents can decide at the statement stage of discussions with the local education authority to put that child in a special school—which may be the best solution for the child—and then be told that the nearest special school is miles away, or has just been closed. That is the point that we are trying to make in the new clause, and that is why we must ensure that the child's interests are paramount.

Miss Anne Begg: I think every Labour Member accepts, and has reiterated throughout debate on the Bill, that nothing in the Bill will stop the special education of children who cannot be integrated in mainstream schools. The hon. Gentleman, however, refers to the distance that a child may have to travel to find a special school. That is why it is so important for smaller units in mainstream schools, or attached to them, to deal with children who have severe disabilities, enabling them to be closer to their homes. The children will not be in special schools; they will be in mainstream schools,


but those schools will have special provision for them. That may be to their advantage, because they will be close to home rather than having to live in dormitories hundreds of miles away.

Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point. I am delighted by the intervention, because it leads me straight to a point about the funding of mainstream schools.

Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leigh: I will, although I am trying to reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg).

Mr. Levitt: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that all special schools are the same. Even when there were more special schools than there are now, if a child needed a particular type of special school—say one that specialised in the education of autistic children—parents might have had to travel a long way and pass several other special schools. The hon. Gentleman also misses the point that many special schools were closed under the previous Government and 13 have opened in recent months under this Government.

Mr. Leigh: I take the point that in the past children may have had to travel long distances to special schools. That is why nobody is arguing in principle with the thinking behind the Bill that it is good to try to encourage children into mainstream schools, if they are nearby, funding is available and the right education and care can be given. However, it must be done properly and that is why we need some serious arguments from the Government about why new clause 2 is not acceptable.

Dr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the wishes of the parents or the needs of the child should be paramount, because both cannot be?

Mr. Leigh: That is a debating point. The reality is that discussions will take place at the statement stage and the course of action that is in the best interests of the child will become apparent to the parents. After all, few parents go out of their way not to put the interests of their child first.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend mentioned the need to travel long distances to special schools. Will he speculate why parents and children might be prepared to travel those distances? Could it be the special treatment and care that children get at those schools? Parents and children often have to travel at their own expense, but they consider it to be well worth it.

Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point, and I know that my hon. Friend also represents a rural constituency. In fact, there is a special school in Gainsborough. My constituency is geographically the same size as Greater London, which has 73 constituencies, but parents will travel many miles to that school because they believe that it meets the special needs of their children.
The fundamental issue is funding. Teachers in my constituency are, on the whole, extremely sceptical about the promised funding from the Government to implement the admittedly desirable objectives of the Bill. Teachers do not think that they will receive enough funding to meet all the extra demands placed on their schools by the policy of inclusion, and nor are they impressed by the training on offer to equip teachers to cope. The Bill needs to be covered by adequate funding if it is to work and our children are to get the best possible education.
If funding is inadequate, the law will be made to look an ass. Schools will refuse to take on more SEN children because they cannot afford to financially; or because it would push the school over the edge of teachability, as one head teacher in my constituency fears; or because schools would be unable to cope with children with special educational needs, who would be far worse off than if they had stayed in their special schools.
Paul Strong is the head teacher of a large, successful comprehensive school in my constituency. It has come high up the league tables and recently, with my help and that of others, has acquired a sixth form. Mr. Strong has said:
there are some children for whom mainstream education may be manifestly unsuited"—
and he thinks that it would be bad for their dignity to put them in such education. He wants to ensure that it is in the interests of the child to come to his school, and that should be put above the Government's commitment to inclusion. He is happy to receive children with special educational needs, provided that the funding is available and it is in the interests of the children. Another teacher has given the example of a child with Asperger's syndrome who finds it difficult to be with large numbers of other children. Clearly it would not be in the best interests of that child to be included in mainstream education.
I have received a letter from a teacher who specialises in teaching those children with special educational needs. She says:
Special Schools have historically catered for one type, or possibly two or more similar types, of SEN: Autism, sight impairment, hearing impairment, physical disability … In those schools, class sizes range from 6 or fewer, to 12, or at most 15 where the needs are not too severe. The teachers are supported by 1:1 SSA's where appropriate, as well as by a trained classroom assistant. The particular needs of the children are met by fully qualified staff, so that, for instance, Physio's and OT's are closely involved with developing and monitoring programmes for children with mobility problems, Speech Therapists work regularly with children with speech and language or hearing difficulties, and psychologists and behaviour therapists have counselling roles with disturbed children. The teachers themselves benefit from training specifically for meeting the needs of the children they are working with, and from a complex support structure within their schools. Life skills are a feature of every child's IER and are given appropriate space in their educational day. Furthermore, the school buildings are adapted and modified to accommodate the needs of the children they serve, and they have the resources and equipment necessary for the children's full educational and pastoral needs.
By contrast, Mainstream schools have classes of 30 children, regardless of the range of need within those classes. One teacher may be supported for some, and in Early Years possibly all, of each day.
However, every school can now expect to be obliged to accept children with any type of SEN, and be required to provide as best it can for their varying needs. Buildings may not be appropriate, resources and equipment may not be available, and staff may have


no training, expertise or understanding of how best to support the children whose parents have opted for Inclusion, but that seems to matter little to those who are promoting this policy.
Those are not the words of a politician or the head teacher of a comprehensive school, but of a teacher who has dedicated her life to teaching children with special educational needs. She has a right to have her view heard by the House, otherwise we could deal a serious blow to the happiness and education of some of the most vulnerable children in our society. The views of such teachers should not be brushed aside by the House.
The Government must give assurances that they will not water down the specificity of the statements that are given to children. The Government backed down in the Lords and now refuse to say when they will issue the code of practice that will outline the rules. Those rules must not be watered down to obscure the funding that a child deserves. Parents must be able to see clearly their child's entitlement and what they can claim from the local education authority.
Another school in my constituency is undersubscribed and has been struggling to attract pupils, for various reasons that are not the fault of the school. I must make it clear that it is a different school from the one I mentioned earlier—William Farr school—which is a highly successful and oversubscribed school. The head teacher of the less successful school told me that inclusion was a very good principle and was necessary for the good of society, but he also said that his school could not take any more SEN children. More money would not help him because he cannot employ staff as it is. He spoke of a vicious cycle in his school in which more SEN children means standards and behaviour declining, which means good pupils and teachers leaving—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): That is outrageous.

Mr. Leigh: Labour Members may not like that, but they must listen to the reality of the education world. We cannot frame legislation simply on the basis of good intentions. I am reporting the views of a head teacher of a comprehensive school in this country and he says that good pupils are leaving, making mere spaces for SEN children and so the cycle continues. Some comprehensive schools could be pushed further into unpopularity.

Mr. Levitt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regard this comment as helpful. If what we have heard is a genuine description of what is happening in two of his schools, I recommend that he invite Ofsted to look at the situation immediately.

Mr. Leigh: That, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind me saying so, is a rather silly point. A very successful, oversubscribed school is, in principle, prepared to have more children but it needs the funding to do so, while the head teacher of another school is doing his best in a difficult situation but could be pushed into taking action that would make the school unpopular. It is a vicious cycle. These people must be listened to; it may be difficult, but life is difficult.

Miss Begg: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was quoting a head teacher. I am disturbed that head teachers

with such views are teaching in comprehensive schools. I was a special educational needs pupil and I was a teacher in a comprehensive school with special educational needs—my own. I find it incredibly insulting that there are some in the education system who make the assumption that because people have special educational needs or a disability they will cause a problem or be badly behaved. That is simply not true.

Mr. Leigh: I am not saying that. I am simply trying to describe the real situation. Often we may not like the real world as we find it. However, the fact is that schools nowadays are competing with each other for pupils, competing for teachers in a very difficult job market and competing in the league tables.
The head teacher I mentioned was not against the principle of the Bill—he is all in favour, in principle, of inclusion. He is simply saying that we should be careful, pause and not rush into a situation in which, in the real world, SEN children may be dumped into certain mainstream schools. [Interruption.] Yes, dumped. I have to use that word. It is no point Labour Members looking shocked. This sort of thing goes on, I am afraid. There is no point in framing legislation full of high ideals if, in the long run, children with special needs suffer.

Mr. Roger Berry: The hon. Gentleman says that in the real world SEN children are dumped into mainstream schools. Will he advise the House which local education authorities behave in that way?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has deliberately misrepresented what I said. I said that if the Bill is enacted, and if the interests of children are not paramount, that is what may happen. I am delighted that what I have said appears to have stirred up a hornets' nest on the Labour Benches. I have obviously touched a raw nerve. Many children receive first-rate education in special schools but there is a danger that if this process continues, they may not receive sufficiently good education.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leigh: I do not want to delay the House but as the hon. Gentleman is anxious to intervene of course I will give way to him.

Mr. Berry: The only reason that I intervened is because the hon. Gentleman referred to "the real world". His description is inconsistent with anything that any local education authority I have ever encountered would do. He talks about dumping children with special educational needs in mainstream schools as if that were the practice of local education authorities. If that is the case, he should either name the local education authorities concerned or apologise for what I regard as a deep slur on what the professionals are trying to do.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has altogether too thin a skin for this House.

Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman is throwing insults around.

Mr. Leigh: I am not. I am simply describing what may happen unless we are very careful. I am perfectly entitled to articulate my point of view, and I will not be bullied into taking it back.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I have listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend has told us happens at the sharp end.
Labour Members are forgetting that it is no longer LEAs that choose which schools children go to but parents. That is where the problem arises. If there is an imbalance in the number of children of a certain type at a certain School, that may impact on the school's success in attracting a broad range of children and therefore on its success as a school.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend has summed up the situation much better than I could. That is what happens in real life, as I was trying to explain.
I have already mentioned Paul Strong, the head teacher of William Fan. Another head teacher, Barry Tointon of Caistor Yarborough school, said that it was essential for adequate money to be provided. They both said that there was nothing that they could do to incorporate more SEN children into their schools without more money and more resources. They do not have any more money lying around to spend on more assistance. They both appreciate the benefits that can be gained but say that it is not possible to do it without the relevant support, funding and training for them and their teachers.
Cherie Taylor, a new SEN co-ordinator in my constituency, said that training was very hard to come by but that she had been fortunate to get a course for a master's degree in the subject. She is in favour of inclusion but emphasises the need for funding.
If the legislation is to be a success, the Government must ensure that sufficient resources are made available to prevent the law from becoming ineffective and damaging to children. The £70 million promised for 25,000 schools per year amounts to an extra £280 per school—hardly a lot of money. It is not enough for the inclusion of more SEN children.
There is no point in the Government producing worthy legislation and putting more burdens on teachers and local authorities without providing the means to make the Bill work. The constant refrain of the teachers I have talked to is to give them the money and they will do their best to carry out these requirements in a difficult situation.
Other fears voiced by SEN teachers include the widespread belief that the Bill does not allow or sufficiently encourage the communication and co-ordination that we have become accustomed to hearing about, but not seeing, in what is supposed to be joined-up government. They believe that there is a need for more communication between the many different agencies that may be involved in a single child's case. That would encourage them to share their information and expertise and to work for the holistic and rounded treatment of a child with SEN. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members agree with that point of view. Such co-ordination is also needed between the NHS and the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that there are enough staff to meet all the child's needs. For example, there may not be nearly enough occupational therapists or speech and language therapists to meet the demands of schools for their children with SEN.
Let me make a point about regulation which also concerns the interests of the child. A teacher told me that he had been raising money for a stair lift over the past few years and had finally got the necessary funds through

voluntary fund raising, and so on. However, it was not allowed to be installed by the authorities because the stairwell was too narrow by less than 20 cm. The chair lift was deemed to be inappropriate and could not be installed for the use of children with special educational needs. The teacher made the point that children, in his experience, are well behaved and do not cause problems in other narrow stairwells. However, he was not allowed to put in the chair lift thanks to health and safety regulations.
We need more common sense, fewer counter-productive regulations and more communication. We need to ensure that the best interests of the child are paramount. We need to ensure that special schools are not closed down, thus reducing choice, and that there is proper funding. There are the points that I have tried to make in my brief contribution and I hope that the Government will listen to them.

Dr. Harris: We will be opposing new clause 2 for the reasons that we gave in Committee when discussing similar issues. I shall not rehearse them at length.
We heard an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), as always. However, his undoubted passion and sincerity led him astray in certain areas. To argue that schools should not somehow be able to garner to them pupils with particular needs or aptitudes—in irrespective of whether that is a good or a bad thing for SEN children—is strange coming from a party that recommends selection by the schools themselves. By definition, that means that some schools do not have the opportunity to get the children that they want because they have been cherry-picked by other schools.
The hon. Gentleman could have made the same analogy with regard to secondary moderns. In areas where there are grammar schools, they have a higher proportion of pupils from poorer backgrounds and poorer educational backgrounds who never get the life chances that are available in excellent comprehensive schools. By analogy, the hon. Gentleman is on dodgy ground, regardless of the merits of the point that he was making. On that, I share the views of those right hon. and hon. Members who intervened on him.

Mr. John Hayes: I really cannot allow that attack on secondary modern schools to go unchallenged. Many secondary modern schools where grammar schools exist provide a first-class education. An example is the Gleed girls school in my constituency, which achieves better results than many comprehensive schools. I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman has had time to reflect on his ill judged remark, he will want to withdraw it.

Dr. Harris: I am conscious that I am about to speak to amendment No. 1, but the evidence is clear that comprehensive education has delivered better standards than was delivered by the system of grammar schools and secondary moderns.
Before I turn to amendment No. 1, I should say that Liberal Democrat Members oppose new clause 2, for reasons that we gave in Committee. I was somewhat shocked—although not surprised—to be accused by the hon. Member for Gainsborough of making a debating


point when I asked him to ensure that the terminology he used was appropriate. After all, this is a debating Chamber. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee, but we made it clear there that it is important not to conflate expressions such as the "rights", "wishes", "needs" and "best interests" of children. Those expressions can refer to different things.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough that there are similarities between action taken to deliver the educational needs of children and action taken in their best interests, but the notion of "best interest" is always subjective. For example, if there is a conflict between doctors and parents over medical matters, it is often left to the courts to decide whether doctors pursued a child's best interests. In connection with education, the views of parents, local authorities and schools may well differ about what is in a child's best interests.
My second point is that two separate criteria cannot be paramount. Both can be important and worthy of consideration, but my dictionary shows that the word "paramount" implies that one consideration must be placed above another.
We accept assurances given in this House, in another place and in the letter sent to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that the Bill is designed to ensure that the educational needs of any child are met, particularly when those needs are special. However, within that general approach, the Bill stipulates that the wishes of parents should be paramount.
In Committee, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said that the wishes of parents—invariably and by definition—were in the best interest of the child. I consider that that may not always be the case, but if one accepts that it is generally right to trust parents, the new clause introduces a conflict in that regard.
Conservative Members say that they want there to be more respect for parental choice. Their belief—which I consider flawed—is that that can be delivered by allowing schools, rather than parents, to select. The language of the new clause is not consistent with that belief.
Many members of the Standing Committee made two points, at length. The first was that a provision similar to the one contained in the new clause has been used to deny children places in mainstream schools when that would have been in their best interests. That is a historical fact and must be taken into account. The second is that most of the organisations that support the rights of children with special educational needs oppose the new clause and support the undertakings given by the Government.
As I have said before, that in itself is not a sufficient argument for the rejection of the new clause, as it is the job of the House to question the Government regardless of what outside bodies say. However, a powerful impression is made when such bodies form a coalition to oppose a new clause such as this. I accept that the proposal is well intentioned, but it is critically flawed.
Amendment No. 1 would substitute the word "effective" for "efficient" in the caveat contained in proposed new section 316(3)(b). As drafted, that new section states:
If a statement is maintained under section 324 for the child, he must be educated in a mainstream school … unless that is incompatible with … the provision of efficient education for other children.

I raised this matter in Committee, and we have tabled the amendment today because I did not get a satisfactory answer. Those seeking to make decisions on this matter will look at what the Minister said. There is a difference between "effective" and "efficient". To many people, the word "efficient" implies financial considerations that are not implied by the word "effective".
Clearly, there is a duty to consider the delivery of effective education. For example—and the circumstances that I shall describe are much rarer than is often claimed—it may be impossible to deliver effective education to a child with special educational needs arising from challenging behaviour in class. By effective education, I mean the delivery of the curriculum in a safe way. However, it might be possible to deliver that education safely, but at an increased cost. By definition, the extra steps that would have to be taken in my example would render the delivery of education less efficient than it would otherwise have been. There is therefore some peril in the use of the word "efficient" which would be avoided by the use of the word "effective".
Do the Government accept that there are significant funding restrictions on schools and local authorities? The Government always quote figures to show how much money is going into education, but those figures are pretty meaningless. As was discussed in Committee, who would not say that another £20 million would always make things better? The Minister must accept that an insistence on the word "efficient" will mean that some schools and local authorities may well say that they are suffering from the financial restrictions arising out of the unfair and undemocratic capping regime that the Government have retained.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), for example, waxed lyrical in Committee—and eloquent today—about the Gloucestershire local education authority. Authorities like that could well argue that lack of funding forces them to reject a mainstream place for a child with special educational needs, even though effective and safe education can still be delivered for other children.
In Committee, I had to drag a response to that point out of the Minister. She said:
The term 'efficient education' is used throughout the Education Act, in, for example, schedule 27 and section 7. It is appropriate to use it here to ensure consistency.
That is a circular argument, or even a Conservative one: how could the law ever be changed, given that a changed law would not be consistent with what went before? Amendment No. 2 was not selected for debate today, but it shows where the consequential amendments would have to be made to achieve a new consistency if the right thing were done and amendment No. 1 were accepted.
The Minister's response in Standing Committee went on:
I have reassured the Committee on the extent to which we are putting extra resources into achieving inclusion and into the education system as a whole. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to expect LEAs to have regard for the efficient education of children, regardless of the fact that significant extra resources are being provided."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 March 2001; c. 69.]
To me, that suggests that the Minister was being honest and accepting that it may not be possible for the Government to afford to make provision in a mainstream


school to provide effective and safe education for other children because of the cost of doing so. However, I draw to her attention the fact that, if cost is the issue, the cost of providing that education separately may be much higher than the cost of providing it in a mainstream school.
Conservative Members ought to bear that in mind as well. I do not want to go into the merits of individual cases or of Conservative policy in general, but the Conservative proposal to ensure that there are more exclusions would have cost implications for any special units that are set up. Accountants would regard the proposal as a less efficient way to ensure delivery of education for children with special educational needs, even though it may be appropriate for the effective and safe education of other children.
The point at issue is a serious one. If cases are to be challenged at tribunal or later in the appeals process, it is important to know what is the Government's thinking on the question of cost as a factor. Unless she is going to accept the amendment, I hope that the Minister will explain why she is not happy with the proposal to substitute the word "effective" for "efficient".

Mr. Levitt: The whole House will know the reputation of the three Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). All three are absolutely committed to the cause of disabled people and to children with special needs. All three have served as officers of the all-party disablement group. Whatever they may say, therefore, I am sure that they will have been as embarrassed by and ashamed of the rant from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) against mainstream integration of children with special needs as we on this side were. The hon. Gentleman was either telling us a story based on partial evidence, ill-informed evidence and hearsay, or describing the very attitudes which will guarantee that integration will not work—that disabled children and children with special needs should be out of sight and out of mind, and that the integration of these children cannot succeed because it could only ever happen at the expense of the majority. Every Labour Member, Liberal Democrat Member and, I believe, Conservative Front-Bench Member would distance themselves from that attitude wholeheartedly.

4 pm

Mr. Leigh: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that I have two children who have special educational needs and are at mainstream primary schools?

Mr. Levitt: I am delighted to hear it. I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman can come up with examples of how integration in the mainstream can work.
I remind the House that the Bill, which we all thought would proceed in the amiable, positive and progressive way in which it has from the word go, aims to ensure, first, the effective integration, where that is the choice, of children with special needs in mainstream schools and, secondly, the informed choice of parents and children

about the use of special schools, accepting wholeheartedly that there will continue to be a role for special schools, in particular for children with severe hearing impairments.

Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the contribution from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) almost sought to create a conflict between teachers in mainstream schools and those in special schools that does not exist? It is a great shame that such a debate should make those in different settings feel that this House thinks there should be some conflict.

Mr. Levitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and pre-empts what I was about to say. Teachers from special schools are assisting teachers in mainstream schools who teach those with special needs. There is a thoroughly seamless and integrated approach.
In Derbyshire we have the concept of the enhanced resource school. It is a mainstream school teaching children with special needs in an integrated way, but with additional funding from the local authority for additional staff and resources, not only to make integration work but to make sure that the extra help that children with special needs get is not in any way at the expense of anyone else. Such examples of good practice exist. I previously commended the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), for her decision a couple of weeks ago to provide funding through a private finance initiative scheme for the replacement of a special school in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) acknowledges that she is in the same position. That shows the Government's commitment to the parallel provision of mainstream and special schools in taking special needs education forward.
The Conservative party does not believe in having too much government, so presumably it believes in having the minimum number of words in a Bill and in not including unnecessary words. Yet today that party is arguing for a new clause which on the face of it looks unarguable and pious. At the same time it perhaps disguises fears and "stirring up" on the Dart of people like the hon. Member for Gainsborough. Yet it is wholly unnecessary in terms of improving the Bill and making it more effective. I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen are pursuing it.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough talked about his chair lift. He told us how the funding for it was raised from voluntary sources—only to find that the lift could not be used. Clearly, that school needs to be aware of the schools access initiative, that there is Government funding to make schools accessible to children with disabilities, and that, by 2003, the sums going into schools will be 10 times what they were when the Tory Government left office. The purpose of the funding is to allow for integration.
This is a wholly uncontroversial Bill, save to say that the Special Educational Consortium, which comprises 200 organisations representing disabled children, is of the view that the Bill does not require further amendment and should not be amended. With that thought in mind, I hope that the House will reject new clause 2.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to my feet 21 years almost to the minute after I rose to give a very different speech at the reception


following my wedding. I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for missing the first few minutes of her speech introducing the new clause. I was called out of the Chamber to receive a flower, which is now in my buttonhole, from my wife. I hope that the House will accept her contribution to this afternoon's debate as she is both a governor of a special school and an assistant classroom helper at that school.
The debate needs some lightening after the last two contributions from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was trying to make and succeeded in making an important point which certainly stuck home with me from my knowledge of education in my constituency. We had a school with a preponderance of children with special educational needs. Whether we like it or not, that was a discouragement to parents of other children from applying to that school. That is a sad comment on social life in Britain today. If we are to encourage people to accept the integration of children with special needs in mainstream education, we must move at a pace that they are willing to accept. No longer is it the education authority that dictates where children go to school; it is the parents who have a choice. We have to be alive to their choices. The vast majority of parents welcome the school that cares for children with special educational needs as well, but they want a school with a broad base of children with all types of special interests and skills. That is what makes a successful school. The aim of getting that balance right must be at the heart of our policy.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) in his laborious, long-winded attention to definition was getting to the heart of the matter. Over 18 years the previous Government developed a body of legislation concerning special educational needs. The underlying assumption behind that was that we were talking about the needs of the child. This afternoon and in previous debates it appears that the Government and their supporters think that we are talking about the needs of the parents or the need for the efficient education of the other children. Surely we must be talking about the needs of the child, and that is the point about the new clause. It is to enshrine in the Bill the fact that the needs of the child are paramount—that child's special educational needs and no one else's.
We need to do that because there is a real worry about resources. In 1997, the leading firm of accountants, Coopers and Lybrand, identified what they described as an expenditure time bomb—the rising cost of spending on educational needs, as, during the past decade, the number designated, formally or informally, as having those needs has doubled as a proportion of children in school. In fact, in only four years, specific expenditure on the special educational needs of children with statements rose from £290 million to £370 million—an increase of 25 per cent.
The worry for people whose children have such needs is that through the Bill—overtly or not—the Government intend to rein in, by moving the goal posts, the spending that must be committed to those children. That worry is what is behind the new clause. It is to prevent at some point—if not at present, in the future—the goal posts being moved through the enactment of the Bill, with future provision for children suffering as a result.
This afternoon, we have heard a great deal about integrating children's education. Where that can be achieved, it is of course the right way to go. However, the professor of special educational needs at the university of Manchester, Peter Farrell, said that social inclusion is not necessarily the same as educational inclusion. Gosden House, the school where my wife works, makes a fantastic contribution to our community. It is proud of the children who leave to go into mainstream education, but it is also incredibly proud of the children who leave the school to go into mainstream society.
The other day, I attended the school's open day—a peace day—when the children gave a wonderful performance in the school hall. I met several former pupils who had come back to support Gosden House. It was striking how many of them were making a success of life in mainstream society. Surely, we should not lose sight of that vital goal—the needs of the child, which are not necessarily the same as those of the parent or of other children in the education system.
The education authority has to balance a host of demands in meeting educational needs. When the Conservatives came back to power in Surrey, spending on special educational needs was about £70 million a year. Of that, £10 million was for transport. That seems a totally disproportionate amount to all of us, so we must look forward to a time when schools are able to use the resources they are given for special educational needs more flexibly and more imaginatively. When they do so, the attraction of mainstream schools for children with special needs will increase.
When the Select Committee on Education and Employment visited the United States about a year ago, we visited several charter schools. I well remember one successful school, the City on the Hill in Boston, which was run by a head teacher who was clearly on the left of the Democrat party. She looked straight at me and said, "Nick, what you have to remember is that charter schools are where the radical left meets up with the radical right." Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead has demonstrated that she is a member of the radical right, because she promotes the idea of free schools, which borrows very much from the success of the charter school movement in the States. We recognise that if we give money directly to schools, their success will be enhanced.
One of the ways in which the City on the Hill has achieved success is that its budget for special educational needs does not depend on children being statemented at all. The education authority gives the school a subvention on the assumption that it will be prepared to accept its fair share of children with special educational needs and that it will do its best for them where they need support. That means that the seamless progress that hon. Members have been talking about this afternoon can happen without the need for constant definition and review of the child's position on the spectrum of special educational needs and mainstream provision.
4.15 pm
That is the approach that we look forward to in the new clause. Money would go directly from the Secretary of State to schools, so the Secretary of State must give direction to those schools and ensure that they fulfil the requirements of such an approach. In due course, I believe that we will move to such a system because—goodness


knows—the present system is excessively bureaucratic. Ofsted says that only one in five schools fulfils its statutory requirements to provide for special educational needs, and that more than a third misuse some of the money that they receive, or fail to implement a proper strategy for meeting the special educational needs of their children. Clearly, the current approach is not working. To change the definitions, as the Bill proposes, will do nothing to help. In looking forward to that time, I support the provision because it envisages a direct relationship between the Secretary of State and the mainstream schools which provide for special educational needs.
Finally, I remind the Government of the Secretary of State's comments on the code of practice during an earlier debate on the Bill. Having got his fingers burnt at an earlier stage of the Bill's proceedings, when the whole world of special educational needs cried foul at the suggestion that the specifying provisions, which are in the present code, might be removed, the Secretary of State withdrew and said:
The code will state clearly that statements should 'describe clearly all of the child's special educational needs in full'".—[Official Report, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365. c. 218.]
All we are saying in the new clause is that that principle is so important that it should be enshrined in the Bill and not merely left to a code of practice that might be amended by a future Secretary of State.

Jacqui Smith: I shall begin my response by dealing with the proposed new clause. As the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) rightly says, it returns us to the important issue of the needs of the child, which we debated at some length both on Second Reading and, constructively, in Committee. Indeed, the new clause has many similarities to amendment No. 5 and new clause 5 tabled in Committee.
The debate in Committee was constructive and I thought that it had helped to allay some concerns. To that extent, I am marginally disappointed that we are going over the arguments again. Some of the issues raised were considered previously and some are new; I hope to respond to all of them.
The key point is that I am sure that everyone in the Chamber believes that the interests of individual children with special educational needs, and their peers, must be safeguarded. I hope that no one doubts the Government's commitment to that. However, it is worth remembering the context within which the argument began. It related to the Government's decision, following consultation, to remove what was, in effect, a caveat on the placement of children with special educational needs, which argued that the needs of the children should be paramount. A point rehearsed today—one which was certainly made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on Second Reading—is that such a caveat in the Bill would have acted in a way that many of us would consider unsatisfactory. It is important not to forget that we are operating in that context.
We also decided to drop that caveat because we firmly believe that safeguards exist elsewhere which adequately protect pupils with special educational needs, so I shall argue, first, that there are some technical difficulties with new clause 2; secondly, that to include provisions about

the needs of the children as new clause 2 proposes would, in effect, act against what we are trying to achieve; and, thirdly, that we ensure that the interests of the child are covered elsewhere through a whole range of legislation and in the processes that are undertaken in relation to children with special educational needs.
I shall take the third argument first. In Committee I outlined those safeguards in detail and, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead mentioned, I wrote to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) to set them out, copying that letter to other members of the Committee. In particular, in addition to the legislative bases that the hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to, I drew attention to the fact that the SEN code of practice and the statementing process ensure that children's educational needs are identified and that appropriate action is taken to help them to achieve their potential.
In many ways, the final point made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) reinforces our arguments that new clause 2 is unnecessary. Statements will specify the provision to be made, so local education authorities are under a duty to arrange for it to be made. Therefore the important issue of children's needs and the provision that should be made for them is enshrined at the heart of the statementing process.
Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools will monitor the new inclusion framework. That monitoring will include looking at whether the needs of pupils with special educational needs are being appropriately provided for under the new framework. We believe that that will help to prevent abuses, if they were to occur, and to ensure that the needs of the child are safeguarded.
As I also highlighted in Committee, sections 496, 497 and 497A of the Education Act 1996 allow the Secretary of State to intervene where local education authorities or maintained schools are acting unreasonably or failing to fulfil a statutory duty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has used those powers to protect the interests of pupils with special educational needs. I outlined in Committee some of the occasions on which that has happened.

Mr. Boswell: Given the context and the reference to the reasonability provisions, which the hon. Lady rightly mentioned, while we cannot necessarily treat a hypothetical case here, would it not seem extraordinary if Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools were to draw attention to a dereliction of duty on the part of the local education authority in implementing the inclusion framework, if the Secretary of State were not then, as an Executive act, to call in and question the reasonability of that action by that authority?

Jacqui Smith: I am not completely clear what the hon. Gentleman is referring to.

Mr. Boswell: I was trying to do it in my cod lawyer language, but let us do it in English. If the inspector says that there is something wrong with the way in which the LEA is operating inclusion, would it not be sensible as a matter of course—although I am not asking for a formal commitment—for the Secretary of State to call in the local authority and ask what it proposes to do about it?

Jacqui Smith: As I believe we made clear in Committee and as I have made clear today, the opportunity does exist,


through those provisions, for the Secretary of State to use powers where maintained schools or LEAs are acting unreasonably or failing to fulfil a statutory duty.
In Committee, when we discussed amendment No. 1, which covered similar ground to the new clause before us, I asked Opposition Members what practical and workable arrangements could be put in place in addition to the Secretary of State's existing powers. No examples have been provided in Committee or since. That suggests that what already exists is adequate.
During today's debate, some Members have expressed concern about the suggestion that, as a result of the Bill, children could be forced into mainstream schools. Our legislation is drafted in such a way that, when parents do not want a mainstream place for the child, the duty to provide mainstream education is lifted. That does not mean that LEAs cannot name a mainstream place in a child's statement, but where LEAs do so and parents disagree they of course have a right of appeal at a SEN tribunal.
We also had some discussion—some of it measured, some less so—about which children it may or may not be appropriate to include in a mainstream school. Of course I accept that there are questions about which children are appropriately included in mainstream schools and those for whom it would be less appropriate. Obviously, the learning and safety of other children must not be jeopardised, and where the efficient education of other children cannot be safeguarded, a mainstream place should be refused. Where that is the case, there needs to be a range of alternative, high-quality provision, but it does not necessarily follow that it is impossible successfully to include in a mainstream school a child who has, for example, emotional and behavioural difficulties. There are plenty of examples of where that does happen, and we want to empower more schools to emulate their example.
There has already been comment on some of the remarks by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who did, I fear, in a slightly less measured way than we have experienced until now in debate on the Bill, suggest, whether or not he meant to, that including children with special educational needs in a mainstream school is necessarily disruptive, and that those children will be difficult and pose a problem.
The vast majority of children with special educational needs are not disruptive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) admirably described, children with special educational needs cover the whole range of the ability spectrum and can be a positive benefit to mainstream schools. One of our arguments for developing, where possible, and in the pragmatic way that we are, inclusion in mainstream schools is that we consider that that is of benefit not only to the children who are included in those schools but to all children in those schools.
The hon. Member for Guildford, in a slightly more measured way—it may be the good influence of the day, and I am sure that everyone in the Chamber would want to extend their congratulations to him on his anniversary—argued that where schools are well resourced and teachers are well trained, which is of course important, inclusion in mainstream schools can be of benefit both to the children who are included and to the other children in those schools.
There were some concerns that if we did not accept new clause 2, we would put special schools at risk or make it harder to obtain a special school place. I reiterate that our proposals in the Bill do not make it harder for parents whose children have statements to gain a special school place. We have always argued that one size does not fit all. That is why we have signalled a continuing role for special schools, and a very important one.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead rightly said that there is significant expertise in special schools, which should be increasingly shared with mainstream schools. That is one of the major objectives of the increased investment that we are making—through the standards fund, for example. It was the intention of the CD-ROM that I launched last year to bring together good practice that showed special schools and mainstream schools working together constructively.
Other hon. Members have suggested that our proposals risk bringing about the closure of some special schools. I can only reiterate that special schools have nothing to fear from the Bill, and repeat that although the size of the special school sector dropped from serving 1.3 per cent. of children in 1991 to 1.2 per cent. in 1995, it has remained constant in each of the last six years, catering for 1.2 per cent. of all children or roughly 97,000 pupils. We do not envisage that that will change dramatically.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South made a very important point about the dangers of looking at raw closure data, because in doing so one ignores the many excellent resource bases that have been set up to provide high-quality specialist provision in mainstream schools. We know that, as my hon. Friend suggested, parents and children like that sort of provision, and that teachers like it especially as it often ensures that the children can be educated in the community with their friends.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that what we believe exists, and what we believe will continue under our legislation, is a buoyant and vibrant specialist sector, which has an important contribution to make in educating individual children and in developing the whole education system.
4.30 pm
Hon. Members have also mentioned resources—an important issue. I can only repeat the arguments that we used in Committee: the Government are providing significant resources to ensure that these measures are effective and that children receive the education that they deserve—whether in mainstream or special schools. As well as the extra £540 per pupil increase in school funding and the total capital spending on schools, which will be £8.5 billion for the next three years, specific funding is aimed at some of the issues that hon. Members have raised today.
The standards fund, which covers important issues such as special educational needs training, has been increased from £55 million in the previous financial year to £82 million in this financial year. That sum is more than four times the £17 million available in 1997£98. I am sure that that will reassure the hon. Member for Gainsborough. As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said, the schools access initiative stands at £220 million over the next three years, so 10 times as much money will be available from that source in 2003–04 than under the previous Government.
Hon. Members will also be pleased that we announced today a further £4 million package, outlining our commitment to partnerships—an issue that several hon. Members have raised. The voluntary sector will receive just over £1 million for projects under the SEN small programmes fund, bringing together different agencies and the voluntary sector to work with mainstream and special schools. Some £1 million will be used to support the continuing work of the SEN regional partnerships, and £2 million will be used to support training for the independent people who will facilitate the new dispute resolution arrangements.
As I have suggested, there are technical problems with the new clause, but I shall concentrate on the effect that we know from experience it will have. As with other amendments, the new clause threatens significantly to undermine our proposals to strengthen the right to a mainstream place for children with special educational needs. Whatever the intentions behind the new clause, its effect would be to reinstate provisions similar in effect to the first caveat in section 316 of the Education Act 1996.
That is why, in a letter sent to the hon. Member for Maidenhead, a member of the Council for Disabled Children said:
I also note that you feel concern that the needs of the child are being ignored. Clause 1 of the Bill amends only one Section of the 1996 Education Act. Elsewhere in the Act, and in the associated regulations and the Code of Practice, the 'needs of the child' are explicitly stated.
It is also why the Special Educational Consortium, which represents many of the organisations that operate in the field, said:
On the face of it, it appears contradictory that a Consortium that has come together to campaign around the needs of children with SEN is arguing that the needs of the child do not need to he explicitly stated on the face of the Bill. However, SEC does not believe it to be necessary, and is concerned that, if re-instated, this condition could be further misused.
For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Maidenhead will feel able to withdraw the new clause. We believe that our proposals protect all pupils—those who have special educational needs and those who do not. They will ensure that inclusion is based on sound foundations and that an inclusive education service offers excellence and choice.
Under amendment No. 1, the word "efficient" would be replaced by the word "effective" in proposed new section 316. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) suggested, it is driven by the concern that the use of term "efficient education" could be interpreted unscrupulously to limit inclusion or resources. He implied that it was somehow rather unprogressive of me to suggest that we need to have consistency in legislation. Dare I say that, although it might not be exciting, consistency in legislation is rather important if it is to operate properly and to have the effects that we want. Therefore, the inclusion of the term "efficient education" in very many other provisions in education law is an argument for its appropriateness to the Bill.
It might be helpful if I explain how the efficient education caveat will work in practice. We believe that it will be possible to demonstrate that a child's inclusion will be incompatible with the efficient education of others

only in a small number of cases. For example, a mainstream place should not be provided where it can be clearly shown that a child's behaviour is so challenging that the safety of others cannot be guaranteed, where other children's learning would be persistently and systematically disrupted, or where, even with other support, a child's inclusion would involve the teacher spending a greatly disproportionate amount of time with the child in relation to the rest of the class.
Of course we would allow that caveat to be used only if maintained schools and LEAs were unable to show that there were reasonable steps that they could take to prevent that incompatibility. In considering what is reasonable—that is, whether an LEA or school can take reasonable steps to prevent a child's inclusion being incompatible with the efficient education of others—cost will be taken into account, but cost will not be a factor in deciding whether a child's inclusion would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children.
Given that commitment and the fact that the new inclusion framework will be monitored by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who has been asked to pay particular attention to the use of the new caveats to ensure that they are not abused, I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will not press amendment No. 1 to a Division.

Dr. Harris: I shall deal briefly with new clause 2 and the contribution of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). I join hon. Members in congratulating him on his 21st wedding anniversary, but I hope, for his wife's sake, that he provides her with more than a copy of that mention in Hansard as his gift. He fell into the same trap of being too loose with some of his terminology that other Conservative Members have. As the record will show, he said that it is important that the needs of the child should be rated more highly than those of society or parents. I do not know where he got the expression "parents' needs" from, but I cannot find the expression "needs of the parent" or "parents' needs"—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to make a contribution now, he must seek the leave of the House.

Dr. Harris: I will not seek the leave of the House to press that point. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly, it would appear that the hon. Gentleman does not have the leave of the House.

Mrs. May: This important debate has gone right to the heart of the issue of whether we should aim to provide the education that is right for every child. We believe that we should, and that is why we tabled new clause 2.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) was generous in his references to the Opposition Front-Bench team and to our commitment to working for disabled people. However, I must disabuse him about our views on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). It is incredible that Labour Members tried to silence the voice of teachers, because it is their voice that my hon. Friend tried to express to the House. Their views may not be convenient to Labour Members, but they need to be heard.
The Bill provides that children with statements of special educational needs must be educated in mainstream schools unless that is incompatible with the wishes of parents or with the provision of efficient education for other children. I simply believe that it is common sense that those two points should be balanced by the consideration of the needs of the child. What is important is not what is right to meet Government targets, but what is right for the individual child. The needs of the child should come first, and that is why I wish to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the new clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 236.

Division No. 197]
[4.40 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Loughton, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Luff, Peter


Bercow, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Beresford, Sir Paul
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Blunt, Crispin
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Boswell, Tim
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maples, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Mates, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian



May, Mrs Theresa


Chope, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Clappison, James
Norman, Archie


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Cran, James
Ottaway, Richard


Cran, James
Page, Richard


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Paice, James


Day, Stephen
Paterson, Owen


Duncan, Alan
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Prior, David


Fabricant, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Flight, Howard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ruffley, David


Fox, Dr Liam
Ruffley, David


Fraser, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Gale, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Garnier, Edward
Shepherd, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gill, Christopher
Soames, Nicholas


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gray, James
Spring, Richard


Green, Damian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hawkins, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Hayes, John
Trend, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Viggers, Peter


Horam, John
Walter, Robert


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Waterson, Nigel


Hunter, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Yeo, Tim


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Mr. John Randall.





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Fisher, Mark


Alexander, Douglas
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Allan, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Allen, Graham
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Foster, Don (Bath)



Galloway, George


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Gapes, Mike


Atkins, Charlotte
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Austin, John
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Bailey, Adrian
Gerrard, Neil


Banks, Tony
Gibson, Dr Ian


Barnes, Harry
Goggins, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Battle, John
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bayley, Hugh
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beard, Nigel
Grogan, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Begg, Miss Anne
Hanson, David


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Harris, Dr Evan


Bennett, Andrew F
Harvey, Nick


Benton, Joe
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Berry, Roger
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Best, Harold
Hendrick, Mark


Blears, Ms Hazel
Hepburn, Stephen


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Hill, Keith


Borrow, David
Hinchliffe, David


Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hood, Jimmy


Brake, Tom
Hope, Phil


Browne, Desmond
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Buck, Ms Karen
Hoyle, Lindsay


Burnett, John
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cann, Jamie
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Caplin, Ivor
Jamieson, David


Caton, Martin
Jenkins, Brian


Cawsey, Ian
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Chidgey, David
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Clapham, Michael



Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Clelland, David
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Clwyd, Ann
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Coffey, Ms Ann
Joyce, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Coleman, Iain
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Colman, Tony
Kemp, Fraser


Connarty, Michael
Khabra, Piara S


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Cooper, Yvette
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Corston, Jean
Lammy, David


Cousins, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Cranston, Ross
Lepper, David


Crausby, David
Leslie, Christopher


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Levitt, Tom


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Darvill, Keith
Linton, Martin


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Livsey, Richard


Davidson, Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lock, David


Dawson, Hilton
Love, Andrew


Dobbin, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Donohoe, Brian H
McCabe, Steve


Dowd, Jim
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Drown, Ms Julia



Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McDonagh, Siobhain


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Macdonald, Calum


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McFall, John


Edwards, Huw
Mackinlay, Andrew


Efford, Clive
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Ennis, Jeff
McNulty, Tony






MacShane, Denis
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mactaggart, Fiona



McWalter, Tony
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McWilliam, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Snape, Peter


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Soley, Clive


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Spellar, John


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mitchell, Austin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moffatt, Laura
Stringer, Graham


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stunell, Andrew


Moore, Michael
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)



Timms, Stephen


Mullin, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Trickett, Jon


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Öpik, Lembit
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pearson, Ian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pendry, Rt Hon Tom
Tyler Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Tynan, Bill


Pike, Peter L
Watts, David


Pollard, Kerry
White, Brian


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Quinn, Lawrie



Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick
Willis, Phil


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wills, Michael


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wood, Mike


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Woodward, Shaun


Roy, Frank
Woolas, Phil


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Salter, Martin
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sawford, Phil
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Shaw, Jonathan



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Clive Betts and


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

INSPECTION OF SPECIAL NEEDS PROVISION

'In carrying out area inspections, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools must report in connection with any report on the education of children with special educational needs on—

(a) the adequacy of local choice of settings for parents of such children;
(b) the mechanism for ensuring that the funds intended to meet the special needs of the individual child are so provided and spent; and
(c) the adequacy of arrangements for the reception and induction of children with special educational needs into educational establishments situated within the area or serving its pupils.'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to an important aspect of the Bill to which the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch

(Jacqui Smith), referred several times. It deals with the role of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools and the inspectorate to keep tabs on what is to happen as part of the new inclusion framework. Although we do not have much time, it is opportune that we should spend some of it on how inspections work. We must bear in mind the important caveat that the Office for Standards in Education is an independent department. It is not directly beholden to Ministers. One of its great strengths is that it can say what it thinks.
As evidence to support my remarks, I have a letter from Chris Woodhead—

Mr. John Bercow: Excellent man.

Mr. Boswell: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's robust remark.
The letter is almost Chris Woodhead's valedictory contribution as chief inspector, and it is specifically on this subject. It was sent to me on 30 November last year in response to a parliamentary question that was referred to him because of convention, and it has been lodged in the Library. Even though Chris Woodhead was sometimes a controversial figure, I do not think that any Member would take exception to anything in that letter. It was very trenchant and to the point, and I will return to it in a moment.
I must point out to the House that there may be a technical error in the new clause. [Interruption.] The Government Whip the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), wants me to sit down, but he should hear what I have to say.
The error reveals my personal background in further education because it refers to area inspections. I think that the Minister is aware, and has been briefed accordingly, that it was my intention to deal with all inspections carried out by the chief inspector, including those of local education authorities and of areas under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, so the new clause goes wider than further education, taking in schools, colleges, the lot.
A few general remarks are called for about the inspection of special educational needs provision. I tabled my parliamentary question last November because I felt that insufficient attention was paid to that. It was also in my mind that as we move towards our stated intention of greater inclusion, or of the right to inclusion wherever possible, the role of the inspector will become ever greater. It is one thing for an inspection to be carried out in a special school—it has already been pointed out that many of those are excellent and appropriate to the job that they are doing—but it is a little more difficult to focus on special needs provision in mainstream schools. It is not an impossible task, and the inspector's letter to me, to which I referred, makes it clear that inspections can be general. There is no reason why they should be confined to special educational needs.
The letter said:
For the inspection of provision for pupils with Special Educational Needs  in mainstream schools, contractors are instructed that in some circumstances inspectors are required to have additional skills or expertise to inspect pupils effectively. If an SEN 'unit' or resourced provision in a mainstream school has a significant proportion of pupils with any of the following"—


he then lists a number of difficulties—
then the inspection of these should be led by an inspector endorsed to inspect that specialism.
Those are the assurances that the House wants to hear about the inspection of, for example, dedicated special provision in a mainstream school.
The inspector also pointed out that Ofsted has commissioned four short documents that focus on pupils with SEN, boys and girls, gifted and talented pupils and ethnic minority backgrounds as being specialist areas of concern. There are also forthcoming reports on the implementation of the national literacy strategy in special schools and on the evaluation of the national numeracy strategy in special schools. A lot is going on in the inspectorate, which is entirely welcome, and not as many of us are aware of that as we should be. It is clear that as we move towards greater inclusion, there will also be greater dispersion of the activity that caters for special educational needs, and it is important that the inspection process should reach into those areas so that inspectors can satisfy themselves about what is going on.
I want now to make more specific remarks about the new clause, which is designed to reflect the particular context that the Bill will change and the move towards the new inclusion framework, as well as the concerns that we have expressed in debates about the Bill. New clause 3(a) invites the inspector to look at
the adequacy of local choice of settings for parents
of children with special educational needs. It is very well for Ministers and, I dare I say, my hon. Friends and me, to express an opinion; we all have a position and we all have local constituencies which, we hope, we know. We are lobbied on particular schools and interests. From my constituency experience, I know that parents often lobby on special education, and I am pleased that they do. They sometimes have an interest in inclusion and may have their heart set on a school that is not appropriate for their child. That situation may exist and may need testing, but it should not arise accidentally as a result of machination by the local authority.
5 pm
In our debates we have already emphasised that informed and genuine choice is important. Burrowing into SEN structures, one cannot but be struck by huge disparities. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) may wish to speak about that when he moves a subsequent new clause. However, I noticed a large disparity in the levels of statementing by different local authorities that were set out by the Minister in a recent written answer. In my own county of Northamptonshire, for example, 2.8 per cent. of the school population have statements, and that percentage is broadly similar in Leicestershire. In Nottinghamshire, the contiguous county to the north of Leicestershire, also in the east midlands, 1 per cent. of the school population has statements. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who knows that county well, has referred to a tradition of not statementing.
That extraordinary disparity in special educational needs clearly derives from the traditions of different local authorities and is the kind of matter to which Ofsted may wish to return. Similarly, the House will be familiar with the different patterns of provision affecting the balance

between special and mainstream education and the types of special school provided by different counties and LEAs. In carrying out inspections, it is important that Ofsted takes an interest in that matter, is able to draw its concerns to the attention of Ministers and the general public, and then—this point is often forgotten—something will need to be done about the problem. Hence my earlier exchanges with the Minister about what will happen if Ofsted points to a problem under the inclusion framework.

Mr. Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting and telling points about the adequate provision of local settings on which parents can make an informed choice. What assessment has he made of the challenges which, inevitably, will be posed by remote rural areas? Clause 39 deals with the extension of provision to the Isles of Scilly, where providing special needs education will be particularly challenging, as there are small groups of children on islands and in remote rural communities. Surely there is a particular challenge in such areas.

Mr. Boswell: I strongly endorse that point. The challenge applies particularly to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but he will be the first to acknowledge that it is not confined to it. The matter should be resolved by the professional judgment of Ofsted in the light of all the circumstances. However, living only hundreds of yards from a county boundary, I believe that other factors must be borne in mind. Most hon. Members will be familiar with the fact that much of the delivery of special education is outsourced across local authority boundaries because of the need to match needs to provision and find the best solution. Ofsted should take an interest in exactly that kind of matter.

Mr. Bercow: I recognise that my hon. Friend is describing an inspection, rather than a consultation, function. Nevertheless, will he confirm that, under new clause 3, the chief inspector would consult the LEAs in the areas in question, but his work would not consist exclusively of consultation with such bodies? Instead, it would involve listening to the views of parents and consultation with them, educational organisations and others.

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. It is right that in carrying out the inspection, the inspectorate should look for itself and see what is happening, and that it should not be nobbled by any particular interest. Thank God that the present chief inspector is an independent person who will want to take into account everything that is going on, but will not adopt a view necessarily aligned with that of the local education authority. Our concerns about practice in the past suggest that it would be unfortunate if some LEAs were allowed to get away with their traditional practices. I shall not comment further on that. Independence is important, and Ofsted is probably the right vehicle to deliver it.
My second point, relating to subsection (b), may be summed up in the single word "transparency". Right across the SEN world and within the consortium, although there is general satisfaction with the Bill there is some concern about whether funds provided to LEAs and through LEAs, in accordance with the special educational


needs of children and the stages set out in the code, are delivered and expended on those children. It is an opaque area.
In Committee I mentioned Dr. John Marks, who has shown that there is a high expenditure which may broadly be called SEN expenditure, that it has risen fast, and that nobody knows a great deal about it. It is an important professional role of the inspectorate to identify what money came in, what money was allocated for provision and on what basis, and whether it was delivered and spent on that provision. That is in the interests of parents and children with special educational needs and of mainstream parents as well.
The third point, which is set out in subsection (c), concerns
the adequacy of arrangements for the reception and induction of children with special educational needs into educational establishments situated within the area or serving its pupils.
That covers the point made by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) about cross-boundary provision.
Educationally, induction—the moment of arrival—is the most difficult. I have come across distressing cases of children who have been well served in special schools, and have then been moved forward through an inclusion agenda or an inclusion philosophy to secondary schools where they enter mainstream provision. The arrangements made for their induction, including the training of teachers, which is critical, were not as good as they should have been, and the result has been a great deal of distress, usually leading to a retreat back into special provision. That is not satisfactory by anyone's standards, and I am sure that it is not what the Minister wants. It is a matter to which the inspectorate should pay particular attention.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a change of provision in my constituency, which has been a bitter experience. Residential pupils were asked to go to a different facility because of the closure of another one, and girls were transferred into what had previously been an all-boy environment. Subsection (c) addresses precisely the difficulty that occurred in that case.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that constructive point and the way in which he expressed it. Whatever we may say about the Bill, and however much people may or may not be enthused by inclusion, there are always practical problems, and it is foolish to try to minimise them or sweep them under the carpet.
In our earlier discussion of new clause 1 we dealt with matters related to mobility and independence, and the education and preparation of pupils for that. It was agreed in all parts of the House that those are important matters, which go a little wider than simply educational provision. It seems to me that Ofsted could, at least in principle, be the gatekeeper in this matter. It could draw attention to areas where it feels that there is no holistic approach to the needs of the child. It could also have a role when an important provision that bears on these matters, but which is not strictly about a special educational need, is not being adequately discharged.
That is the sort of arrangement that we have in mind. I emphasise to the Under-Secretary with responsibility for school standards—in fairness, I think that she has already

made this point—that Ofsted has a heavy responsibility with regard to inspections not only of special schools, but of mainstream provision for special educational needs and the new inclusion framework. Indeed, its responsibility is greater than ever. We want the process to be successful and comprehensive, and we know that it will be professional. As new clause 2, which concerns the rights of the child, was not agreed to, such an arrangement seems an especially sound basis for ensuring that the possibility of inadequate provision, recriminations and the need for remediation is identified and dealt with.

Jacqui Smith: I welcome the responsible way in which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) introduced the new clause, but I believe that it is unnecessary. Ofsted has the power to monitor SEN provision, and it does so. We believe that the arrangements that are currently in place and which are being introduced for monitoring SEN provision and related matters are sufficient. I hope that I can reassure him by speaking about some of them.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the skills of those who are involved in the inspection. He will be aware that the personnel who are selected to carry out inspections and the way in which their inspections are conducted are matters for the chief inspector of schools. Ofsted issues guidance to its inspectors on the inspection of SEN provision, and Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools already has the power to advise the Secretary of State at any time on any matter related to the provision of education. The inspector also has a duty to provide advice and to report on such matters as the Secretary of State specifies in a request.
On inspections of individual schools, Ofsted inspectors evaluate and report on the quality and range of opportunities for learning that are provided by a school for all its pupils, including those with SEN and disabilities. They also consider schools' policies and plans, which include, for example, their SEN policies. That consideration will involve information on how resources are allocated among pupils with SEN. Of course, the hon. Gentleman spoke about transition, reception and induction, with which I shall deal in a moment. I am sure that he will be reassured by the fact that, as inspection of early-years settings becomes more prevalent and we ensure a proper SEN policy for them, the inspection regime will also bite in that context.
5.15 p.m.
The inspectors must report on whether schools manage their resources effectively, including those that are spent on SEN. The hon. Gentleman spoke about transparency in relation to such spending. I am clear about the importance of ensuring transparency in respect of money that is delegated to schools and spent by local education authorities. That is why the Department for Education and Employment is working on how to identify good practice in authorities that delegate provision. We are also working on how to ensure that LEAs have more responsibility to demonstrate how they are delegating money for SEN and to make it clear what they expect from schools in terms of that money.
The Secretary of State can use his powers under section 2 of the School Inspections Act 1996 and section 38 of the Education Act 1997 to require a report from Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools on any school or


local education authority functions that relate to education. As the hon. Member for Daventry pointed out, when the Bill was being debated in another place the Government made a commitment to ask the chief inspector to consider the impact of clause 1, especially proposed new section 316(3), on inclusion when the Bill is enacted. The chief inspector said that he would do that. That commitment was welcome in the House and in another place. We will also look to Ofsted to take account of schools' implementation of the relevant guidance in the revised SEN code of practice in future inspections.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned local education authorities. Her Majesty's chief inspector already has the power to inspect LEAs. Special educational needs is one of the four core activities of an Ofsted LEA inspection.
New clause 3(a) deals with choice of settings. The changes that we are making in SEN provision will give parents of children with SEN and a statement a better deal than they currently have. They will offer better chances of securing a mainstream place for their child. Although there has never been a duty on LEAs to provide a choice of settings, they must arrange sufficient SEN provision in their area. However, as they have never had a specific duty to provide an adequate choice of settings, Ofsted cannot properly comment on that.
Local education authorities have to present for approval school organisation plans which cover the way in which they will make sufficient provision, including SEN provision, for children in their areas. Under its framework for inspection, Ofsted must comment on the key functions of the LEA, including the provision of sufficient school places and the preparation of the school organisation plan.

Mr. Boswell: I want to put on record that although there is historically no specific obligation on LEAs to require a range of choice of settings, section 11 of the Education Act 1996 obliges the Secretary of State to
exercise his powers with a view to … improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice.
I presume that that duty on the Secretary of State is also likely to cover local education authorities' discharge of their responsibilities. It should be viewed as an encouragement of the desirable aim of diversity and choice, which is supported in different ways by all parties.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman has achieved his aim of putting that on the record.
I was dealing with an LEA's role in ensuring sufficient school places and preparing the school organisation plan, which requires local education authorities to provide adequate places for children with special educational needs. That is part of an LEA's key functions, which would be inspected in an Ofsted inspection of a local education authority.
The framework also provides for Ofsted to comment on the allocation and provision of resources across all local education authorities' functions, including provision for special educational needs. I think that that covers some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about transparency. The Bill provides for the normal inspection framework for schools and local education authorities to cover functions relating to their duties to plan for improving accessibility, including the preparation, quality and implementation of such plans.
The new clause also draws attention, as did the hon. Gentleman, to the importance of adequate arrangements being in place for the reception and induction of children with special educational needs. I agree with him that that is a particularly important part of the transfer from one educational establishment to another. That is why the revised code of practice will reflect the importance of the transfer of information between all relevant parties when children or young people transfer, and of the particular arrangements that address this issue.
In reporting on schools, Ofsted will comment on the quality of the provision for all children, including those with special educational needs. If Ofsted feels that the arrangements for the reception and induction of such children are adversely affecting the quality of provision for those children, it can draw the school's attention to that as part of the school's inspection.
Given the reassurances that I have given to the hon. Gentleman about the current scope for Ofsted inspections and about future plans, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Boswell: In the light of the Minister's helpful assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

SPECIFICATION OF PROVISION

'In section 324 of the Education Act 1996 (statement of special educational needs) after subsection (4) insert—
(4A) In drawing up any specification of provision for a child's special educational needs the local education authority shall so far as is practicable have regard to the need for adequacy and quantifiability of such provision".'.—[Mr. Hayes.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hayes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am delighted to move new clause 4, which draws our attention to the important issues of statements and statementing. It is probably fair to say that the business of statementing, which was conceived by Baroness Warnock in her report, given life by the Education Act 1981 and reinforced by subsequent Acts, has, more than any other measure, given status to special needs education and to children with special educational needs.
Statements also give a feeling of power to parents. They give parents the feeling that they have rights over their choices in respect of their children and the treatment that their children are likely to receive. However, statements do a great deal more than that. They are a tool for the detailed analysis of individual needs and the implementation of appropriate education to fit those needs. That is why the suggestion that statementing was to be diluted was greeted with such horror. That suggestion was given its head in the Government's Green Paper, some of whose implications many Labour Members, possibly including some on the Front Bench, probably regret.
In Committee, I think that it was the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) who referred to the Green Paper as a green light for the closure of special schools. She said that some local authorities had even taken the


Green Paper as a stimulus for the closure of special schools. However, we have moved on from there, and one does not want to be too critical. The Government have learned their lessons, and they listened to the wiser heads, many of which were to be found on the Conservative Benches. The Government amended their proposals and we are pleased to see that statements are not now going to go the way that we thought they might.
It is important for us to understand that statements need to be sufficiently specific, particular and well targeted, so that they can deliver the sort of educational opportunities that will allow each child to fulfil their potential regardless of their particular special need or disability. There is an issue here about the willingness of local authorities to offer a statement. There is also an issue about the marriage between statements and the real provision available to turn those statements into an educational reality, in terms of the choice and experience enjoyed by the individual child or student.
I think that the House knows about most of our problems with statementing, but they are worth amplifying. First, parents and others often see the system as complex, esoteric and confusing. I believe that, in Committee, I said that parents were frequently bamboozled. Moreover, local education authorities are not always as humane and sensitive as they might be when parents are going through the difficult business of obtaining a statement.
Secondly, local education authorities are often variable in their willingness to offer children statements. We know of that variability from a brief study of the position across Britain. I have Government statistics here that give the details, and although I do not propose to quote them exhaustively—I am sure you would not let me do that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House certainly would not tolerate it—I think it worth considering one or two. Some relate to London boroughs.
In Bromley, 2.9 per cent. of children have statements, whereas down the road in Croydon the percentage is only 1.4 per cent. In Stockport the figure is 3 per cent., while in Oldham it is just 1 per cent. In Doncaster it is also 3 per cent.; in nearby Sheffield, it is 2.2 per cent. It is clear that some authorities are rather keener than others to issue statements.
The third problem is the time scale. Local education authorities are obliged by statute to provide statements within 26 weeks, although the Audit Commission measures performance on the basis of an 18-week period, which seems perfectly reasonable. There is enormous variation between local education authorities in terms of not just the issuing of statements, but the time that it takes them to do so. According to the official statistics, in Conservative-controlled Wandsworth 100 per cent. of statements are prepared within 18 weeks—a record that I am sure we all wish to celebrate and be proud of—while in Greenwich the figure is 75 per cent., in Liverpool it is 41 per cent., and in Rotherham it is 56 per cent. For some reason, Stoke-on-Trent can only produce statements within 18 weeks on about 4 per cent. of occasions. I do not want to speculate on what is happening in Stoke-on-Trent, but it is clearly not good news for children with special needs or for their parents.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is making his point with the eloquence and panache with which we customarily

associate him. He has made a semi-political point. I do not wish to do so on this occasion, but does he not agree that of the essence—whether or not a statement is decided on—is the privacy of the interests of the child? Surely what should be regarded as intrinsically objectionable in any local education authority is any notion that foot-dragging is taking place for the purpose of saving costs.

Mr. Hayes: Eloquence is my stock-in-trade; I struggle a bit more with panache, but I manage to achieve it occasionally. I am delighted that my hon. Friend recognises that.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the reasons for the variability to which I refer. He is right to suggest that some authorities may be pursuing the matter lethargically not just because of inefficiency, and that there may be a more sinister cause. I shall deal with that shortly, when I refer to the insistence in the new clause that local education authorities deal with specificity. It does not merely ask for that; it insists on it.
5.30 pm
I also wish to pick up the implied point that my hon. Friend made about the balance between statements and real provision. It may be that the reason why local authorities are not producing statements in sufficient number and are dragging their heels is that they do not have the provision to match the statements. Without the matching provision, a statement is not only a worthless document but a major embarrassment to the local authority.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I apologise for not being in my place at the start of the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but I have studied the new clause and heard the thrust of his argument and I wonder what is the point of drawing attention to the long time that some authorities take to draw up statements, other than to decry the practice. The new clause says nothing about the time that a statement should take, but that is what I would have liked it to do.

Mr. Hayes: On that basis, I shall rush to the point in my speech that deals much more closely and specifically with the content of the new clause. I wondered how long it would take the hon. Gentleman, who is always astute about such matters, to recognise that I was speaking rather broadly to the new clause to put the matter into its proper context.
The new clause addresses the need to ensure that statements are specific and target the needs of the child precisely, and that the provision that ensues is equally well targeted. The problem is not only that the provision of statements is patchy, but that the provision of special needs education is patchy. The Minister said, with typical sincerity and the plain speaking for which she is renowned—

Jacqui Smith: How charming.

Mr. Hayes: I am charming as well as being eloquent and possessing panache. The Minister said that the number of special schools is stable. That is true. There have been some closures since 1997, but the trend started before that date and may be partly due to the greater


number of children being integrated into the mainstream. We cannot argue simply that closures have happened unjustifiably or without proper explanation. However, it is true that provision is by no means uniform, and that is highly relevant to the matter of statements. If a child needs a specific sort of educational provision that cannot be met locally—or sufficiently near to the child's home to allow real access to it—that may be an incentive for a local authority to fail to provide the statement or to make it so vague and woolly that almost any provision will do in response to it. Statements must be closely tied to the breadth and diversity of provision that predicates proper choice, because without that statementing will be diluted.
From a close look at how special schools are situated across the country, we know that some local authorities have particular problems. The problem may not be so great in London, where it could be argued that people can travel easily across borough boundaries. However, it is worth pointing out that Barking and Dagenham has 58 schools in total but only one special school, while Redbridge has 89 schools in total and five special schools. There may be local reasons for that—

Ms Hodge: Yes, there are.

Mr. Hayes: I have no doubt that the Minister could tell me what those reasons are, but I presume that she does not wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily.
Let us look at the north-west of England where my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) has taken a particular interest in these matters. He has been a doughty defender of the interests of special needs pupils, parents and special schools. I hope that I may beg your indulgence for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He has played a key role in defending the interests of Brook Farm school and its pupils. It was kept open for a year due, almost entirely, to his efforts and those in the community whom he backed. I was lucky enough to visit that school, as was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on one occasion.
In Cheshire, which has 380 schools, there are 17 special schools. In the Wirral, which has 154 schools, there are 13 special schools. These percentages, or ratios, suggest that the provision of special education, or, certainly, special education in special schools, is by no means uniform.

Mr. O'Brien: rose —

Mr. Bercow: rose  —

Mr. Hayes: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and then once again to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister is familiar with Brook Farm school because we have had a number of meetings and a lot of correspondence about it. Following the school adjudicators' adjudication, the school has been confirmed for closure. I have a letter from the chairman of the governors of Brook Farm school saying how disappointed and saddened they all are by the decision.
There has been great concern in Cheshire—quite a widespread county geographically that does not have a huge number of schools—that many parents were having

to drive children 20 miles to that school from the other side of the county. If parents have to accept the school that is being offered as an alternative—and there are many reasons why we do not believe that it is a good alternative—they will have a further 20 miles to travel, resulting in a major cost, time and dislocation disadvantage. The adequacy issue in new clause 4 would help to address that problem.

Mr. Hayes: I do not want to be taken to Cheshire for the whole of my speech, although that would be a happy journey and a pleasant experience. My hon. Friend is right to give that example as an illustration of a bigger problem. It is true, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley said in Committee, that some local authorities have assumed that they have a green light to close special schools. The closure of special schools, like their survival, is a patchy matter. In certain parts of the country it is difficult, in practical terms, to gain access to the sort of special school that parents might choose if they thought that that was in the interest of their child and if the child's statement specified that it would provide the most appropriate education for them.

Mr. Bercow: I say nothing to detract from the perspicacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). However, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said that he did not want to spend the whole of his speech in or around Cheshire, so may I take this opportunity to put on the record a fact of which I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings is aware? The Furzedown special school in Winslow in my Buckingham constituency, whose head teacher is Mr. Norman Ward, does an outstanding job. It receives relatively little credit or attention and I wonder whether it could have the pleasure of a tribute from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hayes: I do not hand out tributes lightly but I am always happy to pay a tribute to anyone recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham), for any friend of my hon. Friend is a friend of mine. I know that he would not advertise the good work of that school unless it were entirely justified.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman, and I think that we are in the realm of red herrings. To talk about the number of schools per authority implies that we need X number of schools for X number of statements. Does he agree that a statement requires a provision that matches its needs and that such a provision can be offered just as well in a non-special needs school as in a special needs school? I am hoping that there will be a time when no authority will have special needs schools and all children, regardless of ability, will be integrated into one school.

Mr. Hayes: I do not share that view: I think that there is a need for a diversity of provision, by which I mean a mix of children who have been properly and well integrated into mainstream schools, of special units attached to mainstream schools and of special schools which exist, for example, for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. There will always be a number of EBD children who may be better educated outside the mainstream.
Different children have different disabilities. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) is not present at the moment, but he said in Committee, and again today, that he considers that children with profound hearing problems are often educated better in special schools. The same will be true of children with other problems.
A point made in Committee is worth repeating today—that we should remember that special needs are dynamic. There may therefore be a need for children to move in and out of mainstream schools as their special need changes. I am thinking particularly about children with acquired brain injury, which is a special interest of mine. The special need of such children is hard to define, and it will change and have to be redefined. The skills to teach those children are difficult to impart to teachers. Those children may at some times receive better education outside the mainstream, although they may be moved back into the mainstream at certain points in their educational progress and personal development.
I therefore do not entirely share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), but I acknowledge—I thought I had done so already but I shall repeat the point—that it is not enough to say that patchy provision means that all children do not receive a good education. Education delivery may depend on the relative success of integration strategy: authorities that took such a strategy seriously early on are probably further down the road to the successful integration of special needs children into mainstream schools. That will have an effect on the number of special schools that remain in existence in those authorities.
However, it is not possible to assume that that will always be the case. I do not mean that as a partisan statement. Some local authorities give greater priority and emphasis to special educational needs than others, and some have integrated children into the mainstream much more successfully than others. Some allocate greater resources for the task, and place greater emphasis on good special schools than others.
The word that I used earlier to describe that variable provision was "patchiness", which affects detrimentally the availability for many children of appropriate education that is in line with statements. The new clause would strengthen the rights of parents and children to have statements that are appropriate and quantifiable. It would ensure that statements were sufficiently specific to allow proper education to be provided in line with children's needs.

Mr. Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman's primary criticisms of the statementing process are that it is esoteric and resource-driven. It is in parents' interest to seek a statement for their child, as it brings further focus and resources to that child's education. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—with his characteristic charm, panache and eloquence—will say to what extent this rather esoteric new clause would deal with the esoteric nature of statementing. How will it deal with the problem that the statementing process is fundamentally resource-driven?

Mr. Hayes: I invite the hon. Gentleman to look closely at the new clause, which deals with adequacy and

quantifiability. If a statement is made more specific, and is tied more closely to proper provision, questions of adequacy and quantifability are unavoidable.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On the particular point about specificity, I have received letters from my constituents, Mrs. Pritchard and Mr. Nicol, both of whom have children with special needs. It is clear from their letters that they are deeply concerned about the specifics of the Bill, especially as the final proposed code of conduct was not available in advance of this debate. They are worried that the new statementing regime could be watered down. What matters to them is to know how many hours of extra educational support their children will receive. Unfortunately, it is thought that the new code of conduct will mean that statements need describe only what is necessary, and that they will not quantify what is to be provided, nor demonstrate its adequacy.
I fully support the new clause, for the reasons that my constituents have highlighted so cogently.

Mr. Hayes: With typical perspicacity my hon. Friend has anticipated the summary point that I was about to make. He will not, however, have anticipated that I have a copy of the letter to which he refers. He is right in saying that the lady who wrote to him and the two sets of parents with whom he has corresponded are anxious that the statement should be specific in detail and quantified in terms of the number of hours of ancillary or specialist teaching or support required in order to meet the statement, and that the statement will not be so vague or woolly as to allow the local authority to place a child in a school which would be unable—perhaps not unwilling—to meet the needs of the statement in terms of the education it provided. There are real doubts about that.
Earlier in today's proceedings organisations and umbrella groups were cited. Members may be familiar with Action on Entitlement, an umbrella organisation which includes Action Support for the Special Needs Child, the Advisory Centre for Education, All Children Together, the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, the Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education, the Child Growth Foundation, the National Deaf Childrens Society—I could go on. It makes the very point that my hon. Friend has made and which his constituents are anxious should be articulated in the Chamber today. They ask that the code of practice which will accompany the measure is absolutely specific on the nature of the child's educational needs and the amount and frequency of special educational provision required to meet them. The statement should specify the kind and quantity of special education provided. This is the quantifiable and adequacy point that we seek to reinforce through our new clause.
There are real worries about what the legislation will do in this respect and what the code of practice may not do to supplement it. Unless the code of practice reinforces the very points made by Action on Entitlement, my hon. Friend, his constituents and Committee members, it may be—to paraphrase the hon. Member for Colne Valley whom I only wish was here to hear herself quoted a third time—a green light for all sorts of measures which no hon. Member would wish to see in terms of watering down the quality and quantity of good special needs education, be it in mainstream or special schools.
In those interests and with that cause in mind I propose the new clause. It adds to and reinforces the good principles which lie behind much of this legislation and which certainly lie behind the intentions of hon. Members throughout the Chamber.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I do not intend to detain the House for long. This has been one of my long-standing interests. I came in to listen and found myself becoming increasingly concerned about the tone of the debate.
We seem to be encouraging parents to use a statement as a weapon against the local education authority or other provider of services. I agree that this has been the only weapon that parents have had in the past. While resources were run down under the previous Government, local education authorities were finding it extremely difficult to provide for children with special educational needs. As a result, parents grasped the idea of statements as being a tool against local education authorities in the battle for resources. I feel uncomfortable about that. Local education authorities should be on the parents' side. They should be trying to raise standards and raising standards by giving children with special educational needs the resources that they need to meet those needs. So I feel uncomfortable about the tone of the debate. We should be encouraging much more co-operation and trying not to set up this rather confrontational position that we seem to have got ourselves into.
My main reason for attending the debate is that I, too, have received a letter from the parent of a child with Down's syndrome. She expresses concern about the proposed change in the code of practice for special education. Indeed, there must be a national campaign, because the quotation read out by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) equates closely to words in the letter from my constituent. However, there is obviously real concern that unless the statement is specific, parents will not receive the help and provision to meet their child's special educational needs.
My constituent tells me:
There is a suggestion … from what the Department has written … that the wording might say provision should be quantified 'as necessary'. This gives the impression that often it will not be necessary to put the hours of help in the statement when in fact the reverse is true … I know a vague statement will not ensure the help my child requires.
I am looking for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that it is not the intention to remove that power—that tool—from parents. There should be a more co-operative attitude; local authorities should be on the side of parents and should recognise that the only way to raise standards is by providing the resources needed by individual children.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I do not want to pursue the matter too far, but there is clearly a coincidence of interest between the hon. Lady and me, given the respective letters that we received from our constituents. I shall put that into the context of her opening remarks, which slightly concerned me although I bow to her greater experience in these matters. Does she agree that, rather than a weapon against local authorities, what parents most want is confidence in circumstances that are often stressful, difficult and protracted, when ultimately it is they who

have the best interests of their child at heart? If there can be partnership between the LEA and the parent, that is all well and good, but it may not apply in all cases. I should have preferred the hon. Lady to have put that gloss on her opening remarks.

Mrs. Campbell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that maximum partnership and co-operation between the LEA, the school and the parent are in the best interests of the child. That is the best way to meet those interests.
Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary assure us that the Government want to encourage that co-operation and partnership, and that the changes in the wording do not mean that children will be deprived of the resources that they need?

Jacqui Smith: I thank the contributors to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) on his self-proclaimed panache and charm. To show hon. Members how well informed I am, I wonder whether they might be interested to learn that "panache" is the name of a weak French beer—although I am sure that the 1958 vintage was splendid.
The hon. Gentleman outlined concerns about the whole issue of statements, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I shall respond to some of the points that were made.
The first point relates to the different degrees of statementing in different local education authorities. It is, of course, impossible to set up hard and fast national criteria for SEN provision, when the nature, complexity and pattern of individual children's needs and the pattern of school provision vary so much. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) pointed out, a child might require an SEN statement in one area, but might not need one in another where, for example, there was more school-based provision. That does not necessarily mean, however, that there is a difference in the quality of provision made for each child.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge pointed out, the confidence of parents is crucial. In the past, parents believed that obtaining a statement was the way to get the provision that they wanted for their children. I hope that the improvements in parent partnerships and support for parents—not only in the revised SEN code of practice but in the Bill—will help to make parents feel more confident in the system.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings raised the issue of the different lengths of time that local education authorities take to issue statements. He quoted the Audit Commission figures, which actually show that there has been an improvement in the performance of authorities in England in recent years. In 1996, only 40 per cent. of draft statements were produced within the time limit, but in 2000 that figure was 77 per cent. None the less, we have asked, and continue to ask, poorer performing authorities to explain why their performance is disappointing, and for evidence of improved performance. We have provided good practice guidance and reported from the best performers to those whose performance could be improved, and we shall continue to take steps to help bring all authorities up to the standard of the best and to improve overall performance, not least in the improvements that we intend to make in the new code of practice.
The proposals represented in the new clause are unnecessary and would not necessarily serve the best interests of children with statements. Its requirement for the LEA to have regard to the need for adequacy of provision is unnecessary. Local education authorities are required to carry out a statutory assessment of the special educational needs of children for whom, effectively, they believe that they may need to maintain a statement. Those assessments are a thorough investigation of a child's learning difficulties. They involve a range of advice, and the LEA has a duty to seek and consider that advice before deciding whether to issue a statement for a child.
The revised SEN code of practice will set out the expectation that LEAs will also seek and consider the ascertainable views of the child. If, having completed an assessment, they decide to issue a statement, they must set out the special educational needs of that child in light of the assessment, and they must specify the provision to meet those needs. By its very nature, the process requires the LEA to specify provision that is adequate: it must meet the child's needs.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings also raised the issue of quantification. If the new clause is designed to establish a need for local education authorities to quantify provision in statements, whatever the needs and circumstances of each individual child, I believe that it would not be in the best interests of individual children with statements of SEN. There will be occasions when it would not be appropriate to quantify provision. Given the shortness of time, I shall give only a brief example.
A child with a speech and language impairment could be expected to progress rapidly in some areas. The content and detail of speech therapy provision will therefore need to change, often weekly. A deaf child who needs help specifically with communication skills from a specialist teacher of the deaf for a certain time each week may have a statement that specifies access to such a teacher, perhaps for a minimum amount of time, which could be revised in light of progress towards the objectives set out in the statement. The key point is that we monitor progress toward objectives.
The point of the example is to illustrate the importance of the principle of specifying provision—which is not necessarily the same as quantifying it in all cases—for each child individually, according to their particular needs and circumstances. That principle is enshrined in the current statutory requirement in section 324 of the Education Act 1996, backed up by the requirements of the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the sincere views that are held on this issue, and I am aware of the responses to our consultation on the code, so I emphasise the fact that we considered the matter extremely carefully, and have responded by making changes to the guidance in the final version of the code. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have said many times that we have no intention of weakening the legal protection for children with statements, or of encouraging vague statements. Vague statements do

nothing to secure the right sort of help for a child with SEN, and they do not help a school to know what is required of it in helping a child to learn and progress.
The right way forward is to make the guidance in the improved SEN code of practice better. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has outlined how we intend to do that, and said that we will retain the requirement in the SEN regulations for provision to be specified, matching the terms of the duty for LEAs set out in the Education Act 1996. On quantification, the code will make it clear that there may often be a need for provision—

It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on consideration, pursuant to Order [20 March].

Question put and negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

6 pm

Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I want to put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretaries, my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) and for Barking (Ms Hodge), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who was the Whip in Committee, for the enormous amount of work that they, and other Members on both sides of the House, did in Committee, and for ensuring that we reached this stage this evening.
Perhaps such Bills do not receive the publicity that they deserve. Perhaps there is not the interest in the media—but there is enormous interest among our constituents and in the education service, and there is an enormous gain to be made in approving such Bills. I am very proud that—together and, I hope, with unanimity tonight—we have been able to take the Bill through the House and ensure that it becomes an Act, and to take sometimes modest, but important and valuable steps towards greater equality of opportunity.
Legislation can play a part, but only a part, in changing attitudes and restructuring the culture, and in ensuring that people think a little more about what is necessary and about how they can help. During the consideration of the Bill, there have been disagreements about certain points. The debates have been important. Some hon. Members have said things that they may regret when they read them in print, but that has happened very little. Most of the discussion has been about the nuances, and hon. Members have agreed to differ, rather than fundamentally opposing the Bill, and that is how it should be. Given the assurances that have been obtained during the passage of the Bill in the Lords and in Committee in the Commons, and given that people have been able to hear that there is unanimity on so many of the points that have been made, I hope that we can make progress tonight.
It is fair to say that there are times when people feel that others have different attitudes, when they have nothing of the sort. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) will forgive me for referring to the fact that on Second Reading, he implied that my experience of specialist residential provision for special needs had coloured my view. It certainly did so when I was a youngster and in my early political life, but I hope that we all mature to the point where we can balance our experiences with the needs of others.
On Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman said:
It is on the record—and I am sure that the Minister will accept—that the Secretary of State did not entirely enjoy his experience at school."—[Official Report, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 271.]
Well, I did enjoy some of it and I put that fact on the record, as some of my old teachers are still alive and they might have felt that they had been maligned.
The hon. Gentleman talked about his brother-in-law and his wife's sister, who have major sight problems. He said that their experience had been very different and that I had all the power and they had none. Let us forget all that. The Bill is not about power and different experiences; it is about getting the balance right between supporting inclusive education properly and making residential and specialist provision available where it is needed. It is about maintaining the right balance for the individual child, and about how that can be made acceptable to schools, by changing attitudes and practices. As was said at the beginning of our de bates this afternoon, there is a need to provide, in the classroom and the school, the support systems that make it possible for youngsters to experience genuine inclusion.
I shall conclude my remarks by recalling the case of a parent whose little five-year-old child could not see, but attended a school in my constituency. The policy of inclusion had resulted in that youngster being isolated in the school playground. He was desperately lonely, feeling that he had no future. His parent came to me and asked whether we could do anything about that. I said, "Yes. First he has been included inappropriately; secondly, he has not been supported; thirdly, his cry for help has not been heard; and fourthly, we need to get him into a setting where he can learn the skills, obtain she tactile provision and receive the support for mobility and confidence so that he can be re-included in future if that is right for him." We must get it right for every individual child. I am committed to that, and I sincerely believe that Members from all parties are too.

Mrs. May: I join the Secretary of State in his congratulations to the members of the Committee on the thoughtful and careful way in which they considered the Bill. It was a good example of the way in which the House works at its best. As he suggested, such work is not always seen by those outside this building. I also include in my congratulations the Members of another place who started the work on this Bill; after all, much of the work was carried out there. They should be congratulated on the thoughtful consideration that they gave to the Bill.
As the Secretary of State said, we all have the same aim. It is to try to improve the educational opportunities for disabled children and to ensure that children with special educational needs have their needs properly provided for, so that they can develop to their full potential and in a way that is right for them.
It is unfortunate that some Labour Members have sometimes appeared to suggest that anyone who questioned any part of the Bill was against disabled children and wanted to destroy the concept of inclusion in mainstream schools. Nothing is further from the truth. It is essential that we get such a Bill right, and essential for the interests of children that their needs are met. We must ensure that what we do in the House, albeit with the best of intentions, does not, inadvertently or otherwise,

act against the interests of children. That is why it was necessary to ensure that the Bill received careful scrutiny, and to consider the implications of its implementation.
There is no doubt that in the past, some children with special educational needs who would have benefited from education in a mainstream school setting have been denied such education. It is entirely right that we should attempt to ensure through legislation that no children lose out in that way in future. Those children for whom a mainstream education is right and appropriate and who would benefit from it should have such access. However, it is also true that education in mainstream schools for special educational needs children will often work only if the proper level of resources are provided to back up the support within the school. Otherwise, physical inclusion can become educational and social exclusion in the school—the Secretary of State provided an example.
Therefore, we should be cautious and take note of the resource implications of the Bill. If it is to work well and if children with special educational needs are genuinely to be given the opportunities in mainstream schools from which they will benefit, resource provision needs to be made to support them. Without it, their experience in the mainstream school may be far worse than it would be in alternative provision. I make that point because the issue of resources was not addressed in the debates in the Chamber as fully as it might have been. I recognise that it was considered in Committee, but the question of resources has not been brought to the fore as much as it should have been on Second Reading, or, for the obvious reason that we had to consider specific amendments and new clauses, on Report.
Some children with special educational needs will certainly benefit from the opportunity that the Bill provides to be in a mainstream school. However, we must accept that for others the special school environment is right and appropriate. Labour Members, including the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith)—in her response to new clause 2, I think—said that it was scaremongering to suggest that special schools were closing, and that that was not the intention. However, many local authorities are using the push for inclusion of SEN children in mainstream schools as a means of reducing numbers in special schools, which they then close.
I have met parents throughout the country who are worried that the intentions behind those decisions by some local authorities are not always driven by the best interests of children, but by the efficiency of being able to close a school, perhaps because the site can then be sold and the asset realised. That is unfortunate. We must send a clear message that what matters is providing for the needs of children. We must make it clear that we do not want local authorities or others to think that they are being pressed to meet a political agenda on inclusion instead of making decisions on inclusion that are in the best interests of children.
In the debate on new clause 2, I referred to Old House school in Twickenham, which I visited only yesterday. It is for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. In my experience, schools for EBD children and children with moderate learning difficulties find that the greatest pressure to close comes from local authorities. In the case of Old House school, the local authority has stopped statementing and referring children to the school in recent


years. The numbers have dwindled to the point at which the authority can say, "Well, we need to do something about the school because it has such low numbers."
That practice is going on, and it puts pressure on special schools. Parents are concerned that their children are not being properly provided for. Teachers are worried not only about their situation, but about children for whom the particular expertise that they need is not available from teaching staff. They fear that children will not be able to make the best of their educational opportunities because of the closure of special schools.
Teacher training has been mentioned in various debates, although it did not receive much of an airing today. An important aspect of providing places in mainstream schools for children with special educational needs—notwithstanding additional support that they might receive from classroom or special needs assistants—is ensuring that teachers have the expertise necessary to encourage, help and support the children in their classes.
We need to examine the provision of special needs training within the teacher training curriculum. Some people have told me that only half a day was spent on special needs during their teacher training. That is wrong, and we need to ensure that teachers receive much more training so that they can meet the needs of children with special needs who are in their classes. If that is not done well, children with special needs will be in a class, but not receiving the education that they deserve and that we would wish them to have.
The whole point about providing extra access to mainstream schools is to enable children to have the best education. It must meet their needs and ensure that they develop their full potential. That has been the aim of the amendments and new clauses that we tabled in both Houses. The Bill aims to improve educational opportunities for children, and we have tried to ensure at all times that we do just that. We do not want clauses that can have a counterproductive interpretation or attitude taken towards them.
Attitude is of course very important, and I am sure that all hon. Members are struck by the experience of mainstream schools that have included children with special educational needs, in particular disabled children. Those schools say that inclusion is a benefit not only for individual children, in that it improves their educational opportunities, but for other children in the class. That experience benefits not only that educational environment, but society as a whole.
It is important that we improve opportunities for disabled children and provide for the needs of children with special educational needs, but in doing so we need to keep a balanced provision. We need to ensure that parents can choose between mainstream and special schools, and that special schools do not close because local authorities believe that they should meet a political agenda rather than the needs of children. In everything we do, we must ensure that we are genuinely improving educational opportunities for children and meeting their needs.

Mr. Berry: I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, but I should like to make three brief points.
Throughout Report, and so far on Third Reading, too, hon. Members have concentrated almost entirely on part 1, which deals with special educational needs. Part 2 is concerned with attacking discrimination in education on grounds of disability. How welcome it is that we finally have provision to make unfair discrimination unlawful not only in the schools sector but in further and higher education. The Bill corrects a major deficiency of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—the exclusion of education from part III of that Act, which outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods and services.
The previous Government's arguments were that education had to be excluded because it was dealt with in other legislation, and because the money would be spread too thinly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to things in print that people might regret, and when I popped out for a sandwich half an hour ago, I read part of the report of the Committee proceedings on the Disability Discrimination Bill, during which some pretty strange arguments were given for excluding education. I am delighted that this Bill will ensure that disabled people have the same rights and opportunities in education as they have elsewhere in society.
Secondly, I congratulate the Government not only on the high priority that they have given the Bill, but on the extensive consultation that has taken place. I shall not labour the point because I did so on Second Reading. It is difficult—indeed, impossible—to find any organisation of disabled people, parents or teachers, inside and outside special education, who do not welcome the Bill. They want it to be enacted as soon as possible.
Before 3 May, some organisations asked me whether the Bill would be passed before the general election. I suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might have thought of that possibility and that provision might have been made to ensure that the Bill would be passed before any general election. The consultation exercise had been so extensive and had commanded such popular support that the Special Educational Consortium and other groups were afraid that the Bill might not get through. I am delighted that it looks as if it will be passed before the next general election.
Thirdly, the Bill is clearly part of the Government's policy to implement our commitment at the last general election to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people. Part 2 is an absolutely fundamental part of meeting that commitment. That is welcome, and is part of the wider agenda on disability rights, including the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission, the new deal for disabled people, the disabled persons tax credit and so on.
Of course, there is still a lot to do. I have many concerns about charging disabled people for personal services—which perhaps the next Government will address more vigorously than has been done so far. By any fair assessment, the Bill and other measures introduced by the Government seeking to secure equal rights and opportunities for disabled people have made a break with history. Progress over the past four years has been dramatic and fundamental. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, his colleagues and all those who have helped to introduce the Bill and the other measures. Today, many disabled people will celebrate the fact that the Bill and the other Government measures have reached the statute book.

Mr. Roger Gale: You will appreciate more than most, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my parliamentary duties in other Committees prevented me from serving on the Committee that considered the Bill. However, I pay tribute to those on both sides of the House who did so, as it is clear that a great deal of hard work has gone into the Bill.
I have followed the progress of the Bill through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament with great interest and have participated on the rare occasions on which I have been able to do so. I did that because I have particular constituency interest in the Royal School for Deaf Children in Margate, in my constituency of North Thanet. I am therefore a parliamentary supporter of NASS—the National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools—which has made representations to me and, through my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and me, to the Committee and Ministers.
After all that hard work, I am left with two areas of considerable unease. It was plain in exchanges earlier this afternoon on new clause 2 that, in spite of fine words, there is a hidden agenda which says "Mainstream good, special school bad", or at least, "Mainstream good and preferable, special school under some circumstances, if all else fails." That is unacceptable and I share the view expressed by the Prime Minister's wife, Cherie Booth—as she liked to be known when she fought the North Thanet parliamentary seat in 1983—when she recently visited Gap House school in Thanet. After her visit, she told the local press that mainstream education was not suitable for every child.
I agree entirely, and I did not get the feeling from Government Members who responded to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that they believed what they said. As I said, I have followed the debate very carefully indeed. Not every child is suited to mainstream education and not every mainstream school is suitable to provide for the needs of children with SEN. It is a case of horses for courses and using existing facilities, whether in the maintained or non-maintained sector. The hearing-impaired unit at Hampton primary school in my constituency, for example, provides in excellent facility; it is underused because there appears to be an imperative to send children to the school of parental choice which may, or may not, be able to provide for them and may not have the facilities that Hampton primary school can provide for hearing-impaired children.
A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said that special schools feel that they are under threat. Indeed they do Gap House school, which the Prime Minister's wife visited, feels under threat, as does Foreland school. Rightly or wrongly, they feel that the Bill sends out the message that mainstream education is preferable at all costs. Inevitably, that means that some special schools will close.

Ms Rachel Squire: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gale: It is no good the hon. Lady shaking her head; my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough read from teachers' letters this afternoon. Labour Members did not like what he said, but he merely expressed what

teachers were saying. I am merely voicing concerns expressed by those who speak with practical experience on the ground. The fear is there. The Bill will go through, but we shall watch carefully. When in government, we shall change it if it has the effect that some of us fear it may have.
I shall deal briefly with the position of the non-maintained schools. There is a feeling on the part of NASS that their voice has not been properly heard. I hope and believe that, even at this stage, Ministers and particularly the Secretary of State will meet NASS to discuss its concerns.
I want to place on the record the comments made to me in a letter by David Bond, who is the absolutely excellent principal and director of the Royal School for Deaf Children. He states:
There remains a danger that pupils with very low incidence disabilities will be overlooked, until it is too late. We"—
that is, the Royal School for Deaf Children—
continue to experience the aftermath of some apparently 'overlooked' and apparently unplanned and under-funded 'inclusive' provision for pupils with sensory impairments who have additional disabilities. This includes pupils who come to us with significant emotional behavioural problems, which in some cases might have been preventable".
Mr. Bond continues:
I am still seeing and hearing from parents who have not been advised about the existence of Non-Maintained Special Schools, when the Non-Maintained Special School may well have been the best provision available for their deaf child who has additional special needs.
The letter goes on:
Because of their deafness there is very often a delay in the verbal educational skills development of deaf people, and it is for this reason that they require specialist provision or support in ordinary education via facilities and services for deaf people. Settings which are not appropriate for deaf pupils and students will damage their linguistic, communication and verbal educational development if the support is inadequate or if the difference between the deaf child and his or her peers is too great, i.e. if the deaf child is unable to identify with or to communicate effectively with his or her peers.
Mr. Bond continues:
We also see damage to the deaf person's mental health—hence deaf pupils become more vulnerable in respect of their mental health (a deaf child is at least 1.5-2 times or more likely to develop mental health problems than a hearing child). The lifelong cost to the individual and to society is substantial, particularly when the risk can be reduced substantially by ensuring appropriate provision and support. Some of those issues highlight the importance of ensuring optimum use is made of expertise in the Non-Maintained sector.
As I said, I have listened to the debates relating to the Bill and have participated in some of them. I remain of the view that the opinions expressed by NASS have not been taken on board, and that there is a bias against the non-maintained sector. I note in passing that there is a strong bias against parents who choose to send their special needs children to private schools. Those parents and those schools receive no support from the state.
I urge Ministers, when the Bill is on the statute book, to meet NASS and listen to its views. Instead of shunning the provisions offered by the non-maintained sector, they should recognise its value, harness its expertise, and use it to the benefit of the people who matter most, the special educational needs children—not the parents, not the local authority and not the Government.

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Most of us who have a long-term interest in special educational needs will look back to the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s and realise that that was a time of great change. Children who would otherwise be relegated to their home were suddenly brought out by the Warnock report and offered an opportunity that they had not had before. The Warnock report was a great turning point and brought about important changes. Subsequently, there was a period of settling down. Since the inception of the present Government, there has been a great surge of provision for people with disability and for people with learning difficulties, and no more so than in education for children.
Reference was made earlier to statements being used rather like a weapon by parents. The Bill is not a weapon, but a tool whereby authorities will take forward an agenda and offer parents, families and communities provision for children, irrespective of their ability. Many of us were left with a deep anxiety that, during the 1990s, children with learning difficulties had to accept provision that was substantially poorer than that for other children.
The Bill is one of a series of steps towards redressing that imbalance. I think that a lot more needs to be done. The Bill allows children with learning difficulties to enter mainstream schools, but many of us will want to know that the quality of provision in those schools is as good for such children as it is for those without their needs. There is currently a great disparity. I look forward to the day when there is equal provision, when teachers receive appropriate training that can be measured and which parents understand and appreciate, and when there is greater inclusion, which is what the Bill provides.

Dr. Harris: I, too, welcome the prospect of a successful Third Reading. The Secretary of State was right to say that the Bill was unlikely to have received much attention from the media and little general comment outside the House, but people whose lives are touched by the issues with which it deals will know that those issues are debated relatively rarely. In that respect, the Bill has been a good vehicle for debating many matters that are related to special educational needs provision. That was not least the case in the House of Lords, whose numbers meant that useful concessions were extracted from the Government on reviewing how some of the provisions would be put into practice. Fruitful negotiations were also pursued in the other place about the wording of the code of practice on special educational needs.
The Standing Committee was an enjoyable one on which to serve. The tone of the debate was made possible by the contributions of Ministers, Back Benchers and the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who is a model of courtesy and erudition—a word that I used when I did not understand some of his classical allusions.
A number of recurrent themes have arisen during debate on the Bill. They include the important point that was made earlier by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who is no longer in his place. In a Third Reading-style contribution, he said that the Bill might be

seen to lead to integration in the mainstream sector at a pace that was too quick to be tolerated by the people who were hostile to it. He spoke about a school with a relatively large number of children who have special educational needs. One has to be careful before basing policy on attempts to meet—"appease" is too strong a word—the concerns of those who might be hostile to it. We do not have to look far back in history to find analogies with racial integration and to see that Governments and legislators sometimes have to lead public opinion when the evidence shows that what is being done is right.
There are questions about the effective education of other children when those with severe disabilities or challenging behaviour are brought into a mainstream setting, but the enormous contribution of inclusivity to the social development of all children has far too often been lost in some of our debates. Of course, Front Benchers of all parties have raised that issue, but many Back Benchers, especially in the Conservative party, have stressed the problems rather than the opportunities that are created by integration.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made an important point about resources. She knows that the Liberal Democrats share her concern about the need for adequate resources. I say to Ministers that it will be important to ensure that the adequacy of resources is not judged by input and the recitation of figures, which can be seen as more or less impressive, depending on the analysis. They should try instead to judge the need for resources and then see whether it can be matched. Any shortfall in a cash-limited system should be acknowledged. Research into resource needs, outside a feverish pre-election setting in which we all debate tax and spend, will be useful.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) eloquently drew attention to the threat to special schools. I believe that it is important to provide enough special school places locally to meet need. That does not mean that every existing school, some with buildings that are perhaps unsatisfactory, will survive. Some special schools will close while others are built. Sufficient places are the main requirement. When we consider hospitals, the number of beds is more important than the number of buildings. We must be wedded to the concept of provision, not buildings.
The number of places has remained more or less the same in the past 10 years. That will also be the case after the Bill is enacted. Advances in medical science mean that more severely disabled children, who previously would not have survived, are included in the education system. Stable numbers therefore probably mean greater integration. However, integration is generally inadequate.
The Bill and the attendant resources will not be a panacea. It is important to acknowledge that local authorities that are not only cash strapped but capped will find it difficult to statement quickly and make adequate provision for special support. The reviews and research are therefore especially important. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made the point that special schools—and mains ream schools that specialise in SEN provision—can be centres of research. We can learn from their experience.
I am grateful for the important clarification that resources will not be a barrier to integrating children or placing them in SEN settings, with the caveat that such provision must be efficient. Again, it will be important to monitor and collect data from tribunals to ascertain the way in which the measure is bedding down.
I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on part 2. The Bill will be of great benefit and will be broadly welcomed. I welcome the constructive contributions by Members of all parties.

Mr. Levitt: I shall make one of the briefest contributions to the debate. I want to take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) that, in Committee, I made many of the points that he raised about the education of deaf children. I reminded the Committee that the Government took action two years ago to save a school that educates deaf children in a sign language environment and was threatened with closure. The replies that Ministers gave in Committee satisfied me, and I speak as a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People.
It has been a privilege to contribute to all stages of the Bill. I should like to thank the Government in the manner that some of my deaf friends would wish, in sign language. I am signing, "Thank you for the Special Needs and Disability Bill." Let us see how Hansard reports that!

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I cannot follow that, so I shall speak in the normal way, if that is acceptable.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), I feel a little uneasy about the Bill, as I have said previously. My unease is based partly on one or two words in the measure—and, indeed, on some matters that are not included—and partly on the Bill's tone. The assumptions in it are worrying.
The Bill depends heavily on statementing. This morning, I received a letter from the worried parent of a child with special needs that said that statementing was all very well, but that its effectiveness depended on the amount of detail in specifying the requirements of each child. Of course, that is extremely it important. It would be very easy for statements to be prepared for children that would give them the opportunity to go to special schools. However, if those statements were not properly prepared, the child would end up at the wrong school. That is an aspect of the Bill about which I am very concerned.
The tone of the Bill, and the motivation for it, also worry me. Having sat through the Second Reading debate, and been privileged to serve on the Standing Committee, I have been concerned about a number of its aspects. There has almost been an assumption that all children are clamouring and absolutely desperate to be included in mainstream schools. There is no doubt that some are. Many children are already included in mainstream schools and there is no doubt that there have been some, in the past, who should have gone to mainstream schools but did not.
There is, however, another side to that argument. An awful lot of children are desperately frightened of being sent to mainstream schools, and they will not be particularly reassured by the Bill. We have heard many

sad examples, particularly in Committee, of children being excluded from mainstream schools and suffering as a result. We also heard of children with special needs going to mainstream schools and benefiting from it. Hon. Members have given very real examples, but there are also examples illustrating the other side of the argument, in which children have been sent to mainstream schools that have palpably failed them. I was surprised but pleased to hear the Secretary of State give an example of a child who was sent to a mainstream school but, at that point in his education, it was not right for him.
We can all quote examples such as that, but they are not all one-sided. Many people who have been to see me and other hon. Members are desperately frightened of being sent to a mainstream school because they and their parents know that they need to go to a special school.
On Second Reading, I rather unkindly, but probably accurately, described parts of the Bill as a triumph of theory over reality. I regret having had to say that, and I would not have said it, had not my experiences in Gloucestershire taught me that it is the case. It is no use Ministers saying that the Bill, and previous statements on it, are not a green light for the wholesale closure of special schools, because that is what is happening in Gloucestershire. There is a systematic closure of special schools. [Interruption.] Labour Members are speaking from sedentary positions. If they want to come to Gloucestershire to see what is going on, I would be delighted to pick them up at the station and take them to the schools, to show them the feeling there.

Laura Moffatt: If, as the hon. Gentleman states, the wholesale closure of special schools is happening now, how can he presume that the Bill will have the effect of causing that?

Mr. Robertson: I said that that was happening in Gloucestershire. I cannot speak for what is happening in Lancashire or Yorkshire. As it is the Liberal Democrat and Labour alliance in Gloucestershire that is closing the schools, it is up to that alliance to explain why it is drawing the inference from the Government's actions that it is drawing. It is not for me, as a Conservative Member, to try to interpret the Bill or the reasons why the alliance is closing special schools in Gloucestershire. Bownham Park school in Stroud is under threat of closure. The notice has been served. I cannot explain why that is so, but that is the reality. Ministers have to accept that reality.
We have discussed whether resources will follow children, and whether sufficient resources will be put in. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made those important points. I have a further fear, also based on my experience in Gloucestershire. Rather than the resources following the pupils to the mainstream schools, quite the reverse can happen. Some local authorities are trying to close special schools to save money. Far from the resources following the children, the special schools are under threat of closure in Gloucestershire to save money.
To prove my point, the former director of education in Gloucestershire let slip a comment at a meeting that he had forgotten, for a moment, that I was attending. When challenged about saving money on the education budget, he said that, through the SEN programme, he was doing his damnedest. I rest my case.

Mr. Boswell: This has been—perhaps predictably, but certainly agreeably—a pleasant debate on a series of important issues involving parents, children with special educational needs and wider educational aspects. It has been very much in keeping with our earlier deliberations on the Bill.
The House may need to be reminded of what I consider to have been the most striking remark of the day. It was, I believe, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) who pointed out that this was a debating Chamber, that it was necessary for issues to be raised in it, and that, just occasionally, we might need to disagree.
I certainly consider it incumbent on those of us who have a reputation, however ill-justified, for being broadly in the consensus stream of politics to bear it in mind when we are passing what might be loosely described as consensus legislation—in an atmosphere of good will and general bonhomie—that, on certain occasions, that is not the right thing to do. The example of the Child Support Agency demonstrates that we must not take our eye off the ball, and must not forget our obligation to consider issues in detail.
I am now learning—not least from experience relating to what is now the Learning and Skills Act 2000—how to consider Bills that have already been considered in another place. Historically, we have tended to rely on the other place to tidy up after our mess; in some instances, especially that of this Bill, we are then faced with the task of validating the good work done there, which is perhaps more agreeable but is occasionally more inhibiting.
Consideration of the Bill has been, in a sense, politically anaesthetised from the start. That could have created an invidious situation, although I do not think it has done so in the event. Faced with the threat of the ultimate test outside this place—that of a general election—Ministers have put it about that if one jot or tittle of the Bill were altered, that might threaten its passage. I do not suggest that the SEN consortium is unduly credulous, but Ministers have certainly persuaded the consortium that that may happen.
On Second Reading—doing, I modestly hope, our job as Her Majesty's Opposition—we tabled a reasoned amendment expressing our main concerns about the Bill. The Government went around saying, "If you take any notice of these people, the whole thing will fall down flat." I think that on the whole we, as well as the Government, are relieved that that did not happen, that we have had proper discussions, and that we have made some progress.
I must add, however—in the spirit of our consideration—that the Opposition have not succeeded in amending the Bill. We have tried to do so, and we have had some interesting debates, but the Government have persisted in their policy of no change. One element—I acknowledged this in Committee, and I do so again—is that, in comparison with one or two other Bills that I may name later, this Bill is comparatively coherent and well drafted. I realise—I hope that Ministers do as well—that there may be some awful man trap in the detail, which we have not spotted so far. It is possible, for instance, that

the schedule in the Bill that amends schedule 27 to the 1996 Act will cause great grief later. As far as we can see, however, the Bill is coherent and sensible. I hope that that will speed the Bill's passage, and ease its implementation.
Let me give encomiums where they are due. The Under-Secretaries the hon. Members for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) and for Barking (Ms Hodge)—the Ministers who handled the Bill in Committee—Labour Back Benchers, and Liberal Democrat Members have all done their best to be both conciliatory and, on the whole, receptive to points made by my hon. Friends and me and, indeed, by other Committee members. There has been a sense of a working session, in which serious assurances have been both sought and, in general, received. That is also a good omen for the way in which matters will proceed in the future.
I am also very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) for sharing the burden in Committee with me, and to my Back Bench colleagues for the way in which they made their points. That also applies to Back Benchers who have contributed to this debate, because it is important—even when we broadly agree on objectives and wish to be as conciliatory as we can—that we should have opportunities for Members to record, accommodate and consider their concerns so that they can be properly addressed and, if necessary, remedied. For example, this afternoon we had an interesting debate on the role of the inspectorate. The most important outcome of today's deliberations should not be our clucking about the great advance we have achieved—although we have done so—but a determination to make something of the matter in the future and to continue to attend to problems and difficulties as they arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has a particular constituency, as well as personal, interest in non-maintained and special education, and he performed a valuable service by making his point. Indeed, one of the points that I had noted for mention tonight was my concern that the National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools still had some outstanding problems with the Bill. I hope that the Minister will agree to the suggestion of a meeting with the association. A communication problem appears to have arisen with the eastern regional consortium, and concerns have been expressed that some local authorities may have hidden agendas—although no one alleges that the Minister shares them—to try to exclude the non-maintained sector from consideration. It is important that parents have a right to know about non-maintained schools and that such provision should be secured, if it is most appropriate for the child. That returns me to the particular and entirely proper insistence by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that the rights of the child should come first.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) mentioned the civil rights aspect of the legislation, which we tend to overlook. When I was in government, we were aware of difficulties with that aspect—not least that of resources and, in some cases, of governance—but it is time to move on to include education in the civil rights agenda, given that the Disability Rights Commission and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 have now bedded


down. The Conservatives have no problem conceptually with that, we wish it well and we hope that it will work as well as it has done in other sectors so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) expressed passionate reservations about the provision of special schools in his constituency and local education authority. We feel a certain unease in detail but generally accept the common aspiration to move towards inclusion wherever possible and to ensure that it works. However, therein lies the rub for the future. We can all get together in an atmosphere of consensus, but we must also recognise that we cannot achieve our aims just by aspiration and fine words. Much hard work and resources must go into achieving it. From the experience of the parents of children in special education, or those with special needs who are included, practitioners and some local education authorities, several problems still have not yet been ironed out and the Bill will not automatically remove them. There will have to be continuing work in looking at local authorities that do less well, individual schools that are failing or examples of inclusion that are not as good as they should be. Other specific areas of special need should be considered; Of sted's current attention to the autism spectrum, for example, will need proper exploration. That work must be done; it cannot simply be wished that through on the basis of our good will.
When we began considering the Bill in this place, after their Lordships had considered it, we had substantial reservations. There has been some progress in meeting those reservations, and we are glad about that. However, we continue to have some reservations about the practical delivery of this measure and its future resourcing.
Inclusion is a fine aspiration. I have often said that even if children with special educational needs are not included in school they are, by definition, included in life, and will have to come to terms with an adult world that is not always receptive to them. We have to find ways through this, but simply talking about inclusion as a kind of totem or as an aspiration that can be delivered automatically or on the cheap is not sufficient. We must ensure that it works.
I indicated earlier that I might have some news for the House. I am conscious of what the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has said what has been said during the Bill's proceedings, the strong interest of the educational needs consortium and, indeed, the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings in special education. That goes across the House. We are not in the business of making difficulties unnecessarily or of subverting legislation unless it is imperative to do so. We have a common objective, which is to serve the needs of children with special educational needs. In conclusion, we may be able, if not positively to assist the Government, at least not to resist them on Third Reading tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Football World Cup (Television Coverage)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Mr. John Grogan: During the last football World cup in 1998, there was an average of 600 million viewers worldwide per match, with a total of 37 billion viewers worldwide for the tournament. In Bayswater, where I rent my London flat, a multitude of restaurants serve cuisine from all around the globe, encompassing every taste from Spanish to Brazilian to Japanese to Iranian. During the 1998 finals, every one of them seemed to have installed one or two ordinary television sets for the month of the tournament to cheer on the wide variety of teams of their choice and to animate their customers evenings.
FIFA is the custodian of this great international tradition. However, two years before the France 1998 World cup, on 5 July 1996, FIFA brought shame upon that tradition and upon themselves when its executive, by nine votes to six, with three abstentions, voted to sell the European television rights to the 2002 and 2006 tournaments to the German media entrepreneur Kirch and the worldwide rights to his associates, ISL. It stipulated only that the final, semi-finals and any match featuring the national team should be on terrestrial television. The other 50 to 60 matches could be sold off to subscription television.
The press release subsequently issued by Kirch's agents, Prisma, is remarkable in that it begins with a couple of paragraphs praising the impact of the coverage of past tournaments on terrestrial television. It said:
Following the record television ratings for France 98, with audiences of up to 80% of the market share in leading European football nations, the FIFA World Cup proved again that it is the most compelling television spectacle on earth.
World cup football transcends all other football. It consolidates audiences like no other sport, with breathtaking viewing figures that add up in billions. It is watched by men and women, by children and grandparents. It appeals to all kinds of people, from every walk of life"—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr.Mike Hall.]

Mr. Grogan: The press release continues:
It can empty the streets of traffic. It can fill major cities with jubilant fans.
The release has a cynical punch line, however. It states:
The 2002 FIFA World Cup will be more widely available to broadcasters than ever before … The drama and excitement, the universal appeal and commercial potential of the 2002 FIFA World Cup are now available to broadcasters throughout Europe.
There is no mention of fans or viewers. The key word in the press release is "broadcasters". By its own admission, FIFA was prepared to sell out billions of ordinary viewers to court a handful of subscription television companies, whose agenda was clear.
That action is in sharp contrast to that taken by the International Olympic Committee, which has adopted a principle of making the summer and winter Olympic


games as widely available as possible. It also contrasts with the decision of UEFA, which has sold on the rights to the next two European football championships, beginning with the 2004 tournament in Portugal, to the European Broadcasting Union. That will ensure that everyone with a basic television—young or old, rich or poor, in Manchester, Munich or Milan—will be able to see all the action.
It is worth remembering that, in recent months, FIFA officials have been courting Europe's political leaders on other matters, such as help over transfer fees. Millions of pounds of public and lottery money throughout Europe goes into building football stadiums. Would not it be timely for European Governments or the European Parliament to suggest to FIFA that it might be in its own long-term interests to show a more responsible attitude when it gets around to considering future broadcasting rights?
Fortunately, the United Kingdom has a long tradition—going back to the Eden Administration in the 1950s—of protecting for the nation the broadcasting of the crown jewels of sport. That relatively modest intervention in the market is designed to ensure that we can all enjoy and share in the great sporting events of national or international importance. It allows us to experience the tension and excitement together, and to be part, for a little while, of something bigger. It means that we can all, in some way, be in the ground or stadium where an event is taking place.
If the great sporting occasions were not free to all, that feeling—that frisson—would be lost. Many people would merely hear the cheers coming over the wall, and for the majority the result might well mean exclusion from the stadium altogether. Among the people so excluded might be the children who could grow up to be tomorrow's stars.
The precise list of the crown jewel sporting events to be protected has been amended and reviewed down the years. The entire football World cup finals tournament has been listed since at least the prime of Baroness Thatcher in the 1980s. In 1997, the new Government instituted a review of the listed events and set up a committee under Lord Gordon. That committee suggested delisting the bulk of the World cup finals tournaments. In my opinion, it badly misjudged public and parliamentary opinion. The 1998 tournament reminded us all of the thrill and joy of watching teams such as Brazil and Cameroon, regardless of who they were playing against. It also reminded us that, despite Lord Tebbit's cricket test, many British citizens, as well as keeping an eye on England's fortunes, wanted to check on Jamaica, which was making its first appearance in the World cup finals.
Wisely, Parliament decided to maintain the protection of the listed events legislation for the whole of the World cup finals. That list was subsequently ratified by the European Commission under the relevant clauses of the TV without frontiers directive, whereby members of the European Union agreed to respect each others lists.
It is true that different nations place different weights on the importance of the various events. No other European nation lists the finals tournament in its entirety as Britain does, but some—such as Denmark, for example—go further than we do in other respects. Denmark has decided, unlike Britain, that all World cup

matches—even those in the qualifying rounds—that involve the home nation must be shown on terrestrial television in Denmark. Outside Europe, the Australians passion for sport means that they list nearly 50 events—including, incidentally, our own FA cup final.
It is important that rightholders respect the law of the land of the different countries to which they want to sell their products. Contrary to some claims, Kirch knew full well in 1996, when he did the deal with FIFA, what British law consisted of—if he overbid for the rights, that is essentially his problem.
No one is saying that Kirsch has to give away the rights for free. Under the terms of the legislation, any deal which involved any exclusive element of live coverage of the World cup for subscription television would be subject to the agreement of the Independent Television Commission. The ITC would have to be convinced that the terrestrial broadcasters had been offered the event at a fair and reasonable price. Under the terms of the legislation, they would take into account previous fees for the event or similar events, the time of day for live coverage of the event, the revenue or audience potential associated with the live transmission of the event, the period for which the rights were offered, and competition in the marketplace.
The BBC and ITV have, according to newspaper reports, made a bid of £50 million for the 2002 finals. This may not be the £150 million to £200 million for which the Kirch Group was hoping, but it is 10 times what was paid in 1998. Given that during the 2002 finals in Japan and Korea most of the matches, instead of preceding or following on nicely from "Eastenders" and "Coronation Street" in prime time—as happened in 1998 in France—will be in the middle of the night, £50 million sounds reasonable. It also seems reasonable that ITV and BBC, to find this considerable sum, should pool their sport budgets to make a joint bid.
The Kirch Group is having none of all that. It has written to all interested Members of Parliament saying that it wants to start an auction process. It is widely rumoured and feared that Kirch is waiting for an election to be called before beginning the auction. Moreover, the group has claimed to have started proceedings in the European Court of First Instance to challenge the whole concept and scope of the United Kingdom's list. Fortunately, the Government have been robust in their assertions that our law must prevail. Moreover, in recent days Sky Sports has declared that it is not interested in participating in any auction for the World cup rights. Vic Wakeling, head of Sky Sports, told the Financial Times on 23 April:
We're not going to be used just because they've overvalued the European rights for the event without doing their homework. You've got two broadcasters (BBC and ITV) who, between them, have got a lot of money. They've winced at the price and I don't blame them. I think the price Kirch wants is absolutely outrageous—we wouldn't pay that sort of money even if we were allowed to.
It is interesting to note that Sky, which has made an enormous contribution to the televising of sport during the past 10 years, has thrived despite the listed events, the concept of which it opposed in 1997. As Wakeling sees it in the Financial Times interview:
we've never gone for a listed event. It's the consistent coverage of a particular sport which has helped us
drive subscribers,
not the listed events.


The issue of the television coverage of the next two World cups has become a major one in several European countries. In Spain, World cup rights have been sold to a satellite company called Via Digital. In Germany itself, where there are no listed events, the issue is even more sensitive. Chancellor Schroeder's Government put considerable pressure on the terrestrial broadcasters which have paid Kirch over DM500 million just for live coverage of 24 of the 62 matches in 2002, with only a possible option on covering 2006. Consequently, although Germany beat England for the rights to stage the World cup in 2006, ordinary Germans may be able to watch only a handful of matches on television compared with United Kingdom citizens, even though millions of deutschmarks of taxes will have been spent on the stadiums. Not surprisingly, in Germany a campaign is starting to have a similar list of crown jewels to that which we currently enjoy. British football fans of both the fanatical and casual variety will not rest easy until Kirch signs a deal with the BBC and ITV. It is clearly in the interests of the company to come to a deal without unnecessary delay.
In another field, the company has already been forced to retreat from its plans to transfer Formula 1 racing to subscription television because of pressure from car manufacturers. Further damaging publicity could make the Kirch Group public enemy No. 1 among sports fans across Europe.
FIFA, too, needs to step in and sort out this problem. In recent days, Neil Wilson of the Daily Mail has brilliantly exposed how ISL—F1FA's agents who handle television rights outside Europe—is close to bankruptcy. Apparently, Latin American television companies paid up to $100 million to ISL accounts that have been frozen due to the company's horrendous debts. Rumours abound that the Kirch Group itself is in some financial trouble. Both Kirch and ISL have made promises to FIFA that they may be unable to fulfil.
It is possible that, on Wednesday 6 June, England will play Greece in a crucial World cup qualifier. I say "possible" because, as of half an hour ago, FIFA had still not decided whether to kick Greece out of the tournament because of various irregularities. Hopefully, that match will go ahead on 6 June. If it does, it is possible that the following day—7 June—will be one of more than usual political significance. Harold Wilson always blamed—at least in part—England's defeat by Germany in the 1970 World cup for his own subsequent loss at the polls. As a Member holding what could be considered by some people a marginal seat, I will thus have a double reason to cheer on England loudly on 6 June, should the match take place. The good news is that I shall be able to watch the match live on terrestrial television—the BBC on this occasion. I only hope that the same will be true of the final of the World cup tournament next year. The matter is certainly not one of life or death, but for many ordinary people it is of some importance.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for allowing me to say a few words. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby on initiating the debate.
I speak as a football supporter—a fanatical one; as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are different types. I speak also as an officer of the all-party football group. As nearly

a third of parliamentarians are members of the all-party group, we like to think that we are the voice of football supporters in the House.
I begin my remarks with a quotation from Mr. Greg Dyke, the Director-General of the BBC, who spoke at the European Broadcasting Union conference on 27 March. He said:
Of course the real villain of the piece is FIFA who sold to Kirch instead of the EBU. I do grow tired of certain hypocritical sports rights holders who, on the one hand, speak of the importance of universal access and the significance of their events being open and available to all while at the same time selling their rights to the highest bidder regardless of their commitment to those same principles.
The problems that we face in this country about televising the 2002 World cup have been caused by FIFA, whose responsibility as guardian of the world game should be first to football fans and football supporters. It is possible that only four of the 64 matches will actually be shown on terrestrial television in the United Kingdom, if England and Scotland do not qualify and others buy the rights. That is a scandal, so it is right and proper that we are holding this debate, especially as matches between countries in the 1998 World cup drew audiences well in excess of 7 million—and very reasonable they were too.
FIFA's handling of the television rights issue has been a shambles—as has its marketing. On Friday 20 April, The Guardian stated:
Fifa's plans for the next World Cup are in chaos following the sacking of the tournament's marketing chief … The ISL fiasco has added to the growing criticism of Fifa's handling of the 2002 World Cup.
The article also makes the interesting revelation that
Kirch is sweeping the UK auction under the carpet until the general election is over.
I do not think that Kirch is waiting until then; it is waiting until the House is not sitting. Kirch is waiting for that moment to take the opportunity to go to auction over the television rights.
I shall briefly address the issue about FIFA, and the sheer arrogance shown by leading members of it. The general secretary, Michel Zen-Ruffinen, said in Edinburgh:
There has been a misunderstanding that all matches were available to be sold to subscription or satellite TV channels, but this is not the case. We want the finals to be seen by as many millions of people as possible.
His view about finals is simple. He is talking about the World cup final itself. In this country, when we talk about the World cup finals we mean every match, because all football fans, whether fanatics like me or casual supporters like other hon. Members, want to see those during the World cup.
I very much hope that tonight the Minister can give us a real and absolute commitment to the 1998 listed events legislation and confirm that our Government, the Labour Government, will not be bullied by Kirch on this issue. We, the football fans throughout the United Kingdom, will stand up and say that the World cup in 2002 and in 2006 must be available across the UK on free-to-air TV. We can, as a House, send that clear message to Kirch tonight, and make it plain that, as The Guardian said, we do not want any auction swept under the carpet. Kirch should come clean and speak to the House of Commons, and specifically to Ministers, about its plans, which it has simply failed to do in the past few weeks.
Nine World cups have now been jointly covered by the BBC and ITV in this country, with growing audiences each time. It is clearly a successful formula for Britain, football fans and the United Kingdom. They say that football is the beautiful game. It is for me at the moment, because I am a Brighton and Hove Albion supporter, and not only have we been promoted but we are about to win our first championship for 36 years. But the World cup is the biggest event in football—the greatest football tournament in the world—and every single person in this country should be able to enjoy it on free-to-air television.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the House. I am only sorry that the Opposition Benches are empty, because I think it a matter of great importance to many people in this country. I am well aware of the considerable concern among Members of the House about television coverage of the football World cup finals tournament. That has been clear in the list of signatories to my hon. Friend's early-day motion on the subject, and I welcome the opportunity to address some of those concerns.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) for his contribution. He has freely admitted that he is a football fanatic. I could not describe myself in that way—although my two sons could probably be put in that category—but I should like to take the opportunity to wish Blackburn Rovers all the best for the coming Saturday and look forward to its promotion to the premiership, which is where it truly belongs.
We all know the importance of sport—and particularly of football, our national game—to the everyday life of so many people. We also know that the health of sport in this country depends to a great extent on the broadcasting sector. Television income is used to develop sport at all levels. A number of major United Kingdom sports invest a substantial proportion of broadcasting revenue at the grass roots under the Central Council of Physical Recreation's voluntary code on broadcasting. Sport has also been vital to the development of many new television services in recent years. The emerging success of digital television has been largely driven by subscription services and, in particular, by coverage of major sporting competitions. The nation has a great appetite for televised sport, and that shows no signs of abating.
The Government do not intervene unnecessarily in the sports broadcasting market. Our main concern is to ensure that everyone has access to those events which have a clear national resonance. Those events, including the World cup finals tournament, form part of the national calendar and make an important contribution to our sense of national identity. They are included in the list drawn up for the purposes of part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996. Those listed events have a central place in our national life.
Although the broadcasting rights to those occasions are owned by governing bodies, many people regard them as public property. People have come to expect to be able to see those events covered live without having to pay extra for the privilege.
In relation to the World cup, listing seeks to ensure that free-to-air broadcasters, with a reach of at least 95 per cent. of the population, are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to acquire the rights to broadcast live coverage of such crown jewel events. At present, those broadcasters are the BBC, the ITV network and Channel 4. Listing does not guarantee that any event will he broadcast live. Rights holders are not required to sell live rights and broadcasters are not obliged to purchase them or to show the events. However, the legislation clearly stipulates that where live rights are made available for the World cup, they must be made available to free-to-air broadcasters on fair and reasonable terms.
The Independent Television Commission is responsible for ensuring compliance with the 1996 Act and maintains a code on the operation of the legislation. Any United Kingdom broadcaster that obtains the rights to live coverage of the World cup cannot broadcast exclusively live in the UK without first seeking the consent of the ITC. The ITC will wish to be satisfied that broadcasters had a genuine opportunity to acquire the rights on fair and reasonable terms—it is important to emphasise that point—taking into account various criteria set out in its code.
There is no doubt that the World cup has a special place in the nation's heart, as my hon. Friends have mentioned. The whole tournament, which involved 64 matches in 1998, has been listed in its entirety since 1985. Interest in World cup matches goes well beyond those involving the home nations. FIFA requires that the opening game, the semi-finals and the final should be shown on free-to-air television, and we would expect those matches to attract large audiences in the UK and elsewhere, but the interest in many of the other matches is perhaps more surprising. During the 1998 tournament, the average UK viewing figure for all matches was 8.4 million. That is an astonishing figure and, even if the prime matches that I mentioned a moment ago are excluded, the average viewing figures for the rest was 6.7 million.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend say that the British Government are taking a robust position. Does she agree that the signal that a robust defence of this country's crown jewel matches would send to the world is important in ensuring that it is understood that sporting events across the world should not simply be hoovered up by those who wish to restrict viewing to a minority audience who happen to have the wherewithal to see them? Does she therefore agree that what she is talking about could well be of much greater significance than just to the viewing public in the UK?

Janet Anderson: Yes. I could not agree with my hon. Friend more, and I am grateful to him for making that point. I reassure him that the Government are taking a robust stance and that we will continue to do so. It is essential to protect those crown jewels, and I was interested that my hon. Friend the Member for Selby said that Germany is considering a similar system.
The figures for some individual games were remarkably high, with 10.2 million people watching Jamaica v. Croatia, 9.3 million tuning in to Morocco v. Norway and 9.8 million watching Germany v. Iran. Against that background, I can well understand the concern, expressed not only in the House, but among the general public—
hon. Members are reflecting the public's views—that UK viewers may be denied the opportunity to watch the whole of the 2002 World cup live on free-to-air television.
As we have heard during the debate, the German media company—the Kirch Group—acquired the rights to the 2002 and 2006 World cup matches from FIFA in September 1996. I was interested that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove quoted Mr. Greg Dyke, the Director-General of the BBC, and I could not agree with him more. He said:
Of course the real villain of the piece is FIFA who sold to Kirch".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby said, he continued:
If you contrast the action of FIFA with the International Olympic Committee—who have ensured the Olympics have remained universally available—the comparison is stark.
I hope that that message will go out from the House tonight.
As we have heard, the Kirch Group acquired the rights in September 1996. Sadly, negotiations between Kirch and the BBC and ITV for the sale of the rights to the 2002 tournament fell through because Kirch did not consider that those broadcasters' joint offer reflected the true value of the rights. From what we have heard in the debate, it is clear that BSkyB has confirmed that it is not interested in bidding for the rights because it thinks that the terms that Kirch is considering are outrageously high, especially when one considers that the BBC and ITV paid about £4 million each for the rights to the 1998 tournament. Negotiations with the BBC and ITV fell through, and the Government clearly cannot comment on the rights and wrongs of Kirch's decision, but we expect it to comply with the listing legislation. We have protected these special events in law, and we want to see the objective of that law upheld.
To that end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has written to Dr. Dieter Hahn, the managing director of the Kirch Group, and our officials have held a meeting with representatives of the group. It has been made fully aware of the requirement in our legislation that the whole of the World cup tournament is a listed event and that any broadcaster purchasing live rights from Kirch would have to comply with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996.
We understand that Kirch now intends to hold an open auction for the live UK broadcasting rights. The auction rules are expected to be published in the next few weeks. Kirch has said that it intends to comply with the legislation and with the ITC code. Although we cannot foresee the outcome of that auction, we are confident that the ITC will take all proper steps to ensure that the law works in the way that it was intended to so that UK viewers have the opportunity of seeing the whole of the 2002 World cup finals on free-to-air television. That is the result that we want to achieve.
This has been an interesting exchange. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. I shall conclude by quoting a further extract from Greg Dyke's speech in Brussels in March this year. He said:
I hope there is the will here in Brussels to ensure the World Cup is available to all on free to air, universally available television. There is certainly such a will in the British Government.
I reassure the House that there is such a will in the British Government and that there will continue to be so. I hope that that message will be heard loud and clear by the Kirch Group and by FIFA itself.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Seven o'clock.